LexSHANTABAI & ORS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 713 r SHANTABAI & ORS .. A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2006) MARCH 3, 2008 B . (P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) J Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 34, 147, 148 and 302 rlw.s.149: Murder - Trial Court convicting accused wife, her c husband and their son for committing murder of deceased relying on circumstantial evidence -Affirmed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: Prosecution witnesses made a bald and sweeping statement alleging illicit relationship of appellant No. 1 with the deceased for the last many years - Testimony of prosecution witnesses in connection thereof unconvincing D •'' and unbelievable - No evidence led by prosecution to establish that the deceased visited the house of accused on the day of incident - Thus, it would not be safe to convict accused No. 1 for committing murder of the deceased merely because his dead body was found in front of the house of E accused persons - Testimony of PW5, that he saw accused persons going hurriedly towards the bus stand, is not free from doubt - His evidence is hearsay evidence, therefore, it cannot ,, be accepted without corroboration as he does not appear to • be truthful witness- I. 0. failed to collect finger prints on alleged F weapons of crime - Moreover, weapons so collected found lying in open space - Prosecution failed to establish that weapons recovered had been used by accused in the commission of crime - Moreover, blood-group detected on clothes seized belonging to the appellants did not tally with G the blood-group of blood found on the clothes of the deceased and also on the articles seized by I. 0. - No cogent, satisfactory ~ and convincing evidence led by prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances holding accused-apf?ellants guilty of 713 H 714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A committing murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt - High Court was not justified in upholding conviction of A 1, A2 and A3on surmise and hypothesis - Hence, conviction and sentences of the accused set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them - Circumstantial evidence ' B - Testimony of According to the prosecution, accused-appellant A 1, ~ wife of A2, had illicit relationship with the deceased for . the last so many years. On the fateful day, the deceased . had left his house in the morning and as he did not return c till late evening, his brother, PW1, enquired about him from PWS, a workman in a flour mill in the nearby area, who informed that he saw accused persons hurriedly going towards the bus stand. PW1, along with some other village people then went to the house of A1, where he found the D dead body of his brother lying in the compound of the house. He also noticed injuries on the body of the '• deceased. PW1 lodged a report in the police station on the next day. On the basis of the report, an FIR was registered by the police naming A1, A2-her husband, A3- E son, AS-daughter and A4-husband of AS as culprits for committing the murder of the deceased. After completion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer and after receipt of the post mortem report and Chemical Analysis report, charge sheet was filed by the Police against the . • • F accused persons for the commission of the crime. Trial Court framed the charges against them for committing the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC and found A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of committing murder of the deceased and convicted and G sentenced them accordingly for committing the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34, IPC. However, A-4 and A-5 have been acquitted of the charges. Being aggrieved, A-1, A-2 and A-3 preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court confirmed H the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. . SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 715 Accused-appellants contended that there was no A direct evidence against them and the Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed gross error in convicting them on the basis of highly unbelievable, insufficient and unconvincing evidence led by the prosecution; that there is not an iota of evidence on record s . to prove that on the day of occurrence, the deceased had visited their residence nor the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 had illicit relations with the deceased f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.