LexRAMESH BABURAO DEVASKAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
4 RAMESH BABURAO DEVASKAR AND ORS. A V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OCTOBER 12, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.} B ... Penal Code, 1860: '1 s.302-Enmity between two groups-Murder of two persons- c FIR lodged at the spot by informant on the basis of statement made by alleged eyewitness-Copy of FIR sent to Magistrate after 4 days~ Delay unexplained-Conviction based on statement of witnesses~ Challenged-Held: Proof of motive itself not a ground to hold accused guilty-Existence of motive may also lead to false implication-No D overt act attributed to other accused except accused no.9-Their >--- names did not appear in FIR-Even alleged eyewitnesses did not attribute any overt act on their part-Conviction set aside. _,,. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.154-Delay of 4 days in sending FIR to the court of E Magistrate-Held: Fatal to prosecution case. Prosecution case was that there was enmity between the two groups, one belonging to PW-13 and the other to the accused No. 4. On the fateful day at 10 O'clock,PW-11 and PW-12 were going in a F --1 cart. Deceased 'S' and 'B' who were on a motorcycle overtook them. "t Accused persons 11 in number were waiting for them near the place of occurrence. They surrounded 'S' and 'B'. Accused No. 9 exhorted others to assault but he himself inflicted vital injuries upon 'S'. 'B' intervened. He was also threatened. He started running away from G the scene of occurrence. He was chased. PWs 11 and 12 seeing them chasing 'B' hid themselves nearby in a sugarcane field.' B' was found murdered in front of the house of PW-14. Brother of the deceased (PW-9) who was also coming back from his village along with others 197 H 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A found his brother murdered. PW-11 informed him about the details of the incident. He came to his house and informed his sister-in-law. She in turn asked PW-10 to inform about the incident to the first informant PW-13. PW-13 reached the police station at about 12.30 p.m. He allegedly did not furnish the details of the incident. He only B named Accused No. 9. He disclosed to PW-16 that murders of 'S' and 'B' have been committed. He was asked to furnish details of t the incident, which he did not do. He asked PW-16 (1.0.) to come to r- the place of occurrence. An entry of the said information was made in the station diary. PW-16 came to the place of occurrence with PW- r c 13. The details of incident were narrated to PW-9 by one of the alleged eye-witness, viz., PW-11, on the basis whereof the First Information Report was lodged at the spot. The First Information Report was lodged at about 2.15 p.m. wherein, nine persons were named as accused. It, however, reached D the Court of the Magistrate only after 4 days. Before the Sessions Judge, a large number of witnesses were examined. PWs 11 and 12 were eye-witnesses. Relying on their testimonies and of other witnesses, the Sessions Judge convicted Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 an.d 11 and acquitted Accused Nos. 4, 8 and .10. High Court E dismissed all the appeals. Hence these appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. PW-13 met the investigating officer at the police station. He informed him about the incident. However, he did not F disclose the details. A First Information Report although need not be encyclopedic, but in this case PW-9 did not say that he was not aware of the details. He named Accused No. 9. He disclosed about the murder of his brother. The alleged eye witnesses had disclosed all the details about the incident to all whom they had met including G another brother of the deceased viz. 'B'. Why he did not lodge the first information report has not been disclosed. (Para 10] (206-G-H; 207-A] 1.2. Strangely enough, the First Information Report was H recorded at the spot. Panchnamas were also held immediately ,,!- -! "I }- / RAMESHBABURAODEVASKARv. STATE 199 thereafter. Inquest Panchnamas were taken. In the inquest report, again Accused No. 9 was named. In the inquest Panchnama, it was stated that the Panchas felt that the deceased was attacked by some unknown assailants with sharp edged weapons and have stabbed and seriously injured him due to which he might have died. Why it was recorded like that is a mystery. In the First Information Report, PW- 11 was named as the only eye-witness to the occurrence. So far as PW-12 is concerned, he evidently was a chance witness. His nam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.