LexPANDURANG CHANDRAKANT MHATRE & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 58 A PANDURANG CHANDRAKANT MHATRE & ORS. \ - v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2007) "'" .. ~ ... ~,;,·· . ,;' B OCTOBER 8, 2009 [D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 3261149 and 148 - Conviction under - Rivalry between two political factions - c Accused armed with deadly weapons forming unlawful assembly - Murderous attack on one and injuries to other members - Acquittal by trial court - High Court upholding ...... acquittal of five accused and convicting eight accused u/s. 3021149, 3261149, 148 and imposed imprisonment for life and D . different period of sentence - On appeal, held: Order of trial )- court was erroneous - FIR not affected by legal infirmity - Evidence of eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence in respect of deceased as well as injuries sustained by them - Proved beyond doubt that eight accused guilty of offences E punishable uls. 148 ands. 3261149 - Plea of alibi not proved - Thus, conviction and sentence awarded by High Court against A-2, A-3 and A-12 upheld - Conviction of A-4, A-5, · .\--- A-6, A-10 and A-11 u/s.148 and 3261149 upheld but that u/ s.3021149 set aside - Sentence uls. 148 upheld and that u/s. ,, , F 3261149 modified. Two political parties were on inimical terms. On the fateful day workers of rival party armed with deadly weapons assaulted SA, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10-members of other party. SA sustained G · serious injuries and later succumbed to his injuries. Other witnesses sustained injuries. Nineteen persons were tried for offences ulss .. 147, 148, 3021149, 302134, 3071149 and s. 3261149 IPC. Trial court acquitted the appellants. High H 58 .. f "'· ~ -~ - -"" PANDURANG CHANDRAKANT MHATRE & ORS. v. 59 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Court upheld the acquittal of five accused and convicted eight accused u/ss.302/149, 326/149 and s.148 IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life and different period of sentence under other counts along with fine. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The whole approach of the trial court in consideration of the evidence of eye-witnesses was faulty and flawed. The evidence is independently examined and it is found that the judgment of the trial court acquitting all the accused persons suffered from factual and legal errors justifying interference by the High · Court in appeal within permissible limits. Thus, the conviction of A-2, A-3 and A-12 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and the sentence awarded to them by the High Court to suffer imprisonment for life is maintained. The conviction of A- 4, A-5, A-6, A-1 O and A-11 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with s.149 IPC is set aside. The conviction of the appellants under section 148 and section 326 read with section 149 IPC is upheld. The sentence awarded to them under section 148 IPC is maintained. However, substantive sentence for the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 149 IPC is modified and each one of them is sentenced to suffer RI for three years. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. [Paras 65 and 66] [101-F-H; 102- A-8] A B c D E F 2.1. First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to discredit the G testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilized for contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses. First Information Report cannot be used with regard. to the testimony of other witnesses who depose H 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A in respect of incident. The earliest information in regard " to commission of a cognizable offence is to be treated as First Information Report. It sets the criminal law in motion and the investigation commences on that basis. Although FIR is not expected to be encyclopedia of 8 events but_ an information to the police to be 'first information report' u/s.154(1) Cr.P.C. must contain some essential and relevant details of the incident. A cryptic -" information about commission of a cognizable offence ~ 1 irrespective of the nature and details of such information c may not be treated as FIR. [Para 29] 2.2. In the instant case, PW-5 reached the police ,11"- station at about 4.00-4.15 a.m. He gave information that several persons were assaulting members of their party
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.