RAMKRUSHNA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMKRUSHNA 
" ~ 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA Tm, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s.27-Discovery of handle of knife on confession of accused-Held : 
c Admissible under S.27-Knife found in the pitch of manure at village-
Hence, it is not correct to contend that knife was recovered from open 
space-Pena/ Code, 1860-ss. 302134. 
s.8-Motive-When presence of accused with knife at the place of 
D 
occurrence is established, motive takes back seat. 
Testimony-Part of testimony of witness-Held: Can be relied on. 
~ . 
Prosecution case was that there was property dispute between the 
deceased and accused no. l. Appellant-accused no.2 is brother-in-law of accused 
E no. 1. They went to the house of deceased armed with a knife and a large 
stick known as 'Ubhari' and shut the door of the room where P.W. 8, the son 
of deceased was sleeping. The door of the room where wife of the deceased 
was sleeping was open. On hearing cry of her husband P.W. 3 came out. 
Appellant threatened her at the point of knife asking her not to shout. Both 
the accused assaulted the deceased with knife and ubhari. P.W.8 heard cries 
F of his father. He broke open the door and saw the accused coming out of his 
' 
father's room. Deceased succumbed injuries. 
During investigation, Appellant made a confession leading to recovery 
of the handle of the knife. Before trial Judge, P.W.3 turned hostile. Two other 
G 
witnesses turned hostile. Trial Court however relying upon the statements of 
P.W.8, and to some extent, the deposition of P.W.3, held the appellant guilty 
for offence under ss.302/34 I.P.C. High Court upheld conviction. Hence the 
.. 
present appeal 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
818 
RAMKRUSHNA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
819 
HELD: 1. The First Information Report was lodged at the earliest possible A 
time. P.W.1 was approached by the first informant P.W. 8 soon after the 
incident. He categorically stated that the appellant and the accused no.1 were 
named as the assailants of deceased by P. W. 8. Disclosure of the names of the 
assailants of the deceased by P.W. 8 at the earliest possible opportunity, being 
not in dispute, the court below did not commit any error whatsoever in believing 
the prosecution case. [Para 8 and 9) (822-G-H; 823-A) 
B 
2. The evidence of P.W.8 fully supported the prosecution case. He was 
the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of 
his further. He had to break open the door. He found the accused coming out 
of the room. He had asked them to wait but hey ran away. The fact that his C 
doors were bolted from outside to prevent any male member from assaulting 
the accused and his arriving at the scene of occurrence immediately after he 
assault took place is beyond any shadow of doubt. He found the deceased with 
bleeding injuries at several places on his person. He also found the butt of 
the knife embedded in the stomach of the deceased. His step mother P.W. 3 
categorically stated that it was the accused who had assaulted the deceased. D 
She might have turned hostile but she had seen two persons in the room. 
Accused No.1 was one of them. She in her examination-in-chief although 
stated that she could not identify the other person, but in her cross-
examination by the prosecution, she categorically stated that a person other 
than accused no.1 threatened her on the point of knife preventing her from 
shouting. P. W. 3 identified the appellant in the court. She categorically stated E 
that the accused before the Court was the same person who had been preventing 
her from shouting at the point of knife. [Para 12) (823-C, D, E, F) 
3.1. From the post-mortem report it appears that the deceased had 
suffered as many as seven ante-mortem injuries. In the opinion of surgeon, 
the probable cause of death was shock and hemorrhage because of multiple 
external injuries and injuries to internal organs like heart and intestine. P. W. 
6 proved that the appellant had hired a cycle from him. He also identified him 
the court as the person who had hired the cycle. 
(Para 14 and 15] [823-G, H; 824-A-B) 
3.2. The Chemical Analyst's Report (Ext. 38) establishes that human 
blood was found on the knife and also on the butt of the knife having been 
recovered•at the instance of the appellant, is. also of some significance. 
Discovery of the said fact is admissible under s.27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
It is also not correct to contend that the butt

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