SHANTANU SITARAM @ ANIL DIVEKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 22-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 944 
A 
SHANTANU SITARAM @ ANIL DIVEKAR 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
B 
(Criminal Appeal No. 724 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 
[A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J 
C 
Penal Code. 1860 -
s.302 rlw s.34; s.120B- Three accused 
- Prosecution case was that wife of Al was found dead in car -
The story set up in defence by Al was that when he was going in 
car with his wife and daughter, three persons asked for lift who 
were permitted to sit in the rear seat and those three persons 
D subsequentiy ~t the force of knife asked Al to take the car at their 
desired place and assaulted Al and put a noose in the neck of the 
deceased - The story was disbelieved by the trial court and accused 
were convicted u/s.302 rlw s.34 and uls.120B - High Court upheld 
the conviction under s.302134, however, acquitted them of offence 
u/s. l 20B - On appeal, held: The gold ornaments worn by the victim-
E deceased at the time of occurrence were recovered at the instance 
of A2 - Recovery of stick, piece of rope and knife were also at the 
instance of A2 - Medical evidence proved that ligature marks on 
the neck of deceased were possible by nylon rope recovered at the 
instance of A2 - Theory as put by Al that he gave a lift to three 
F 
unknown persons in the car who robbed them and assaulted them 
was disbelieved by lower courts - Injury in the manner as stated by 
Al on his person was not corroborated by medical evidence and 
other materials on record - Statements made by Al in s.313 Cr.P.C. 
as well as written statement submitted by him where he stated that 
he does not know A2 and A3 were found to be false as courts below 
G found that there was evidence to prove that A2 and A3 were friends 
of Al - Plea that since High Court acquitted the·accused under 
s. l 20B they ought not to have been convicted under s.302 rlw s.34 
also cannot be accepted - Chain of circumstances pointing the guilt 
towards all the accused - Interference with the order of conviction 
. H not called for. 
944 
SHANTANU SITARAM @ ANIL DIVEKAR v. THE STATE OF 
945 
MAHARASHTRA 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. There is evidence of PW.13, who was priest of 
both the families and who had performed the marriage of the 
deceased and Al that he had seen Al moving in the company of 
A2 and A3 before the day of occurrence. PW.29, father of Al has 
.also stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 are friends of accused No.1. 
B 
A2 is rikshaw owner who was engaged to carry on the bakery 
items of Al. A3 is residing near the house of Al. At the instance 
of A2 the gold ornaments which were worn by the deceased at 
the time of occurrence and were missing from the body were 
recovered from the neighbourer of accused No.1 and other gold 
C 
articles which were deposited by the wife of A2 in Dapoli Urban 
Cooperative Bank for taking gold loan of Rs.14,200/- were also 
found out. The said gold articles were produced by the Bank 
Manager. In the identification parade all the gold items were 
identified by the father and mother of the deceased. Further 
recovery of stick, piece of rope and knife were proved by panch D 
witnesses. The medical evidence of PW.10, was thoroughly 
considered by both the courts below and from the medical 
evidence it was proved that ligature marks on the neck of the 
deceased were possible by nylon rope recovered at the instance 
of A2. !Para 8) 1949-D-G] 
E 
2. The submission for the appellants that since the High 
Court has acquitted the accused under Section 120B IPC they 
ought not to have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 
IPC also cannot be accepted. The mere fact that evidence under 
Section 120B has not been proved does not in any manner affect 
F 
the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Al to A3 with 
common intention committed the crime which has been proved 
by the prosecution and the conviction of Al to A3 under Section 
302 read with 34 IPC cannot be faulted. Both the courts below 
have thoroughly examined the oral evidence and found the chain G 
of circumstances fully proved pointing the guilt towards Al to 
A3. !Paras 9 and 10] 1950-B-D) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No.724 of2012. 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
From the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 21.07.2011 
B 
c 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal 
No.518/2004 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No.736 of2012. 
Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Mohua Sinha, 
Nawalendra

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