LexRAM MARUTHI PAWAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 956 ' A RAM MARUTHI PAWAR II. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2007) B APRIL 15, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s.3021149 - Murder - lnspite of concession made on behalf of State in favour of accused persons, trial court convicting one of the accused - High Court though rejecting the evidence of identification, allowing State's appeal against r D acquittal of another - HELD: Evidence being full of contradictions conviction of both the accused set aside. The appellant and 14 others were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable uls 302 rlw s.149 IPC. The trial court convicted A-12 and acquitted all others. E The High Court allowed the appeal of State against acquittal of A-14 and dismissed the appeal of A-12. Aggrieved, A-12 and A-14 filed the appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court ,~ - F HELD: 1.1. It was conceded on behalf of the State before the trial court that it was not possible to say that any offence has been committed by accused Nos.2 to 15 and they can be immediately set at liberty. The trial though G recorded the concession, but convicted A12. [Para 2 and :>] [958-C-D, H] -f ~ 1.2. The High Court's judgment is equally baffling. It noted that the identification parade took place after three months when PW-9 identified accused Nos.12 and 14. H 956 .._ - ) RAM MARUTHI PAWAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 957 - The High Court after indicating some reasons held that._ A the evidence regarding the parade was to be rejected. The High Court also noted the fact that before the police, PW9 did not say anything about his being an eyewitness. But High Court went on to hold that just because he has given different versions at different point of time, his B evidence cannot be discarded and it cannot be said that he is not an eye-witness. The conclusions of the High Court are certainly not defensible. Evidence of PW-9 is full of contradictions. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in convicting the appellants. The conviction as c recorded by the trial court and the High Court, so far as A-12 is concerned and the conviction as recorded by the High Court so far as A-14 is concerned are set aside. [Para 4 and 6] [959-D-E; G-H; 960-A-C] ~ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal D No. 1609 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.06.2007 of the High Court of Bombay in Crl. Appeal No. 740/1986. E Shriniwas R. Khalap, Wajih Shafiq and Anip Sachthey for the Appellant. Gaurav Agrawal and Ravindra Keshavrao for the -) Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These two appeals are inter- linked and are directed against a common judgment of the Bombay High Court. Of the two appeals before the High Court, one was filed by Nathu Keru Bhatre (hereinafter described as G .1 ¥ 'A-12'). The other appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the acquittal of one Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan (hereinafter referred to as ·A 1 ') and the appellant Ram Maruti Pawar (hereinafter described as 'A14). In all, 15 accused H 958 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. A persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The trial court convicted A 12 while directing acquittal of other accused persons. The State's appeal before the High Court related to accused nos. 1 and • B 14. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State qua ~ Ram Maruthi Pawar A14 while upholding the acquittal so far as Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan (A1) is concerned. 2. Though learned counsel for the appellant urged many c points, we do not feel it necessary to go into them in detail. There are some disturbing features which have been noticed. It appears that during the course of trial, learned prosecutor appearing for the State conceded before the trial court that it was not possible to say that any offence has been committed by accused Nos.2 to 15 and they can be immediately set at - D liberty. The trial recorded the concession in the following words: 1 "At the very outset of this arguments, Shri Pandey submitted that after critical examination of the prosecution evidence, it is not possible to say that any offence has E been committed by accused Nos.2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9, 10,11,12,13,14 and 15 and they can be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.