RAJU AMBADAS GANGEKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 24-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 1
RAJU AMBADAS GANGEKAR
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1961 of 2009)
JANUARY 24, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304, Part II – Murder – Reversal of
acquittal – Jurisdiction of Appellate Court –  Pursuant to a quarrel,
deceased and his colleague were allegedly chased by the accused
– Appellant assaulted the deceased with a ‘gupti’ – PW-13,  Police
Constable was on patrolling duty in the area and was alleged to
have seen the appellant assault the deceased with a gupti – Trial
court acquitted the accused – High Court, while confirming the
acquittal of three of the accused, convicted the appellant u/s.304
Part II, IPC– On appeal held: On the basis of the evidence, there is
no doubt in regard to the identity of the appellant as the assailant –
Dying declaration has a ring of truth – Deceased specifically
deposed to the clothes worn by the assailant – PW-13, who witnessed
the incident, corroborated the nature of the apparel worn by the
accused/assailant – Clothes recovered from the appellant at the time
of his arrest within a few hours of the incident, matched that
description – Stains found on the clothes, matched the blood group
of the deceased – Identity of the appellant established beyond
reasonable doubt – Medical evidence in regard to the nature of the
injuries is entirely consistent with the ocular evidence – Appellate
court is justified in reversing an order of acquittal where the order
of acquittal suffers from perversity and has resulted in a miscarriage
of justice – High Court has furnished cogent reasons for coming to
the conclusion that the charge against the appellant was established
beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court proceeded purely on the
basis of surmises when it observed that it was unlikely that PW-13
had witnessed the incident – Trial court fell into grievous error
which was justifiably corrected by the impugned judgment of the
High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt, on the basis of the evidence
which has emerged, in regard to the identity of the appellant as
the assailant.  The dying declaration Exh. 21 has a ring of truth.
The deceased specifically deposed to the clothes which were worn
by the assailant.  PW-13, the beat constable who had witnessed
the incident, corroborated the nature of the apparel worn by the
accused/assailant.  The clothes which were recovered from the
appellant at the time of his arrest within a few hours of the incident,
matched that description.  Added to this, is the fact that the blood
group on the stains which were found on the clothes, matched
the blood group of the deceased. The identity of the appellant
has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Undoubtedly, two
of the witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-9 as well as two panch witnesses
had turned hostile. However, there is no reasonable basis for the
trial court to have disregarded and rejected the evidence of PW-
13, the beat constable, who was on duty.  The presence of PW-13
at the spot where the incident took place was in the natural course
of things.  Nothing has been elicited in the course of his cross-
examination to cast a doubt on his statement that he was assigned
to duty at the place where the incident took place.  Similarly, the
mere fact that the panch witnesses in support of the discovery
had turned hostile is no reason to discredit the case of the
prosecution.  The medical evidence in regard to the nature of
the injuries is entirely consistent with the ocular evidence.  [Paras
21, 22][11-B-F]
1.2 The High Court on the basis of the evidence on the
record came to the conclusion that since the incident had been
preceded by a quarrel, the case would not attract the provisions
of Section 302.  It is in this view of the matter, that the High
Court has convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II and
sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of five years. The
appellate court is justified in reversing an order of acquittal where
the order of acquittal suffers from a perversity and has resulted
in a miscarriage of justice. The High Court has furnished cogent
reasons for coming to the conclusion that the charge against the
appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
has proceeded purely on the basis of surmises when it observed
that it was unlikely that PW-13 had witnessed the incide

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.