LexPRAKASH DHAWAL KHAIRNAR (PATIL) versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E PRAKASH DHAWAL KHAIRNAR (PATIL) v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA DECEMBER 12, 2001 . [M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 1208, 201, 397 rlwSection 34-Multiple murder-Circum- stantial evidence-Property dispute-Accused murdering his brother, mother and brother's family-Recovery of blood stained pant, shirt and shoes-No reasonable explanation by accused as to the injury sustained on his shoulder- Confessional statement of co-accused, son of the main accused, fully corrobo- rating the circumstantial evidence-Trial court convicting and sentencing both the accused for the offences charged under-On appeal, High Court convicting the main accused under Section 302 and acquitting the co-accused from the offence of murder and convicting him only under Section 201-Held, justified- Conviction of main accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(l)(a) and (b) Arms Act confirmed-Arms Act, 1959 Section 25(1)(b)(a). Section 302-Sentence-Death sentence-Rarest or rare case-Accused murdering his brother, mother and brother's family-Accused not having any criminal tendency-Confessional statement of co-accused states that after the commission of offence, there was tears in the eyes of the accused-Held, not a rarest of the rare case-Death sentence set aside-Sentence for life imprison- me/11 imposed with the direction that accused shall not be released from the F prison unless he had served 20 years of imprisonment. G Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 24 and JO-Confession of co-accused- Admissibility of-Acquittal of co-accused from the main offence of murder- Effect of-Held, would not render his confessional statement inadmissible in evidence. Al and A2 were prosecuted for offences punishable nnder Sections 302, 120B, 201 397 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 2S(l)(b)(a) of the Arms Act read with Section 1208 of I.P.C. The prosecu- tion case was that there was dispute between Al and his brother regarding H partition or agricultural land and deceased S was evading to give share of 612 .. - .. PRA~SHDHAWAL KHAlRNAR(PATIL) v. STATE 613 the land to Al. A2 was son of Al. The enmity between the brothers led Al A murder his brother S, mother and brother's family. Police recovered from the place of incident, blood stained pant, shirt and shoes. During the investigation A2 made a confessional statement before the Magistrate implicating his father Al for the offence. Trial Court convicted the ac- cused for the offences charged under and sentenced them to death for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120 B. Aggrieved, accused persons preferred an appeal before the High Court, and for confirmation B of death sentence the matter was referred to High Court. High Court relying upon the circumstantial evidence and confessional statement of A2 confirmed the conviction of Al under Section 302 and maintained the death sentence. However, A2 was acquitted from all the charges except the C one punishable under Section 201 lPC. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of Appellant-accused it was contended that since the High Court has given benefit of doubt to A2 with regard to conspiracy for commission of murder, and was acquitted from the main offence, his confessional statement was not admissible in evidence; that even assuming . that the circumstances as alleged by the prosecution were proved they were not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. Both the courts below have rightly relied upon the circumstantial evidence for connecting Al with the crime which is suffi- cient to connect the accused with the crime. The appreciation of evidence by courts below is not in any way erroneous. The conviction of Al for offences punishable under Section 302 lPC and under Section 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act by courts below is confirmed. (623-A; B; 628-F] 1.2. The prosecution examined PW 33, servant of deceased S and PW 34 to prove the motive. Evidence of PW 33 shows that there used to be quarrel and exchange of abuses between Al and S on account of dispute over partition of land. Both PW 33 and PW 34 stated that A2 had threat- ened to kill S. Thus, the motive for the crime is established beyond reason- able doubt in the instant case. (623-C; D; Fl 2. The blood stained cloth and shoes worn by Al at the time of his arrest were sent to the chemical analyst and the blood of A group which mat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.