LexPANDURANG KALU PATIL AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PANDURANG KALU PATIL AND ANR.
v.
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA
JANUARY 17, 2002
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
Criminal Law :
Penal Code, 1860/Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 34, 149, 302, 307 &
c 326/Section 27-Accused Al, A2 and A3 armed with guns and A4 and A6 with
knives-Deceased was shot dead and his brother suffered gun-shot injuries-
Discovery of gun on interrogation of A2-Conviction of A I, A2 and A3 for
murder and acquittal of A4 and A6 by Trial Court-High Court altering the
conviction of Al for attempt to murder and of A4 and A6 for voluntarily
D causing grievous hurt-Held, the discovery of the gun is a discovery of fact-
On facts, conviction of Al upheld since Al had common intention with Al and
A3 to murder the deceased and his brother-Acquittal of A4 and A6 since they
did not inflict knife injuries and no intention to murder.
Accused Al had enmity with the father of the deceased over some
E landed property. A 1 with other five accused A2 to A6 went in a jeep and
stopped before the deceased and his brother PW2. At, A2 and A3 had
guns and A4 and A6 had knives. On seeing them, the deceased and PW2
started running to escape. The accused chased them and opened fire at
them. Both of them sustained serious gun shot injuries. While the deceased
F died on the spot, PW2 did not succumb to the injuries. Trial Court
convicted At and A3 under Section 302 IPC, A2 under Section 307 IPC
and acquitted A4 and A6. The High Court, while confirming the conviction
and sentence of Al and A3, converted the conviction of A2 from Section
307 to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and reversed the acquittal
of A4 and A6 and convicted them under Section 326 read with Section
G 149 IPC. Hence the appeals by A2, A4 and A6.
The appellants contended that the version of PW2 is inconsistent with
the injuries noted by the doctors on the deceased - that the deceased had
gun shot injuries in the front 'and not at his back; that the High Court
H was wrong in relying on the evidence of a police officer PW18, who stated
338
{
'
~ '-
1,
~
y
PANDURANG KALU PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
339
that the gun, which was used in the crime, was unearthed on interrogation A
of accused A2; and that A2 should be convicted for attempt to murder
under Section 307 IPC since PW2 had not succumbed to the injuries.
Disposing the appeals, the Court
HELD : I. I. It is quite possible as per the reflex action, the running B
deceased would have turned back cit.her to see whether he has gone out
of the range of peril or to know the nearness of it. The mere fact that PW2
said that the deceased was running forward and the accused shot them
from behind cannot rule out the possibility of such twirling of the deceased
when the guns were fired. (344-H; 345-Af
1.2. The fact discovered by the police officer PWI 8 is certainly not
the gun. The fact discovered is that A2 had concealed the gun behind the
'lid house under a heap of wood. It was the same gun with which A2 had
fired at PW2 and that aspect has been proved with the help of other
evidence. (345-Df
1.3. The object of making Section 27 as a proviso to Sections 25 and
·"
26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was to permit a certain portion of
c
D
the statement made by an accused to a police officer admissible in evidence
whether or not such statement is confessional or non-confessional.
Nonetheless the ban against the admissibility would stand lifted if the E
statement distinctly related to a discovery of fact. A fact can be discovered
by the police pursuant to an information elicited from the accused if such
disclosure was followed by one or more of a variety of causes. Recovery,
or even production of object by itself need not necessarily result in
discovery of a fact. (342-E-F)
F
1.4. The High Court erred by not taking the import of the collocation
of the words 'discovery of a fact' as envisaged in Section 27 of the Act. In
a given case, an object could also be a fact but discovery of a fact cannot
be equated with recovery of the object though the latter may help in the
final shape of what exactly was the fact discovered pursuant to the
information elicited from the accused. (343-C)
G
Pulikuri Kottaya & Ors. v. Emperor, AIR (1947) Privy Council 67,
relied on.
Jajfar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra, (1969( 2 SCC 872;
Earabhadrappa (alias) Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1970) SC H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] I S.C.R.
A 17Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.