SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 12-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
JULY 12, 1989 
rs. NATARAJAN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 
1860: Section 302-Murder-Accused 
acquitted by trial court-High Court reversed acquittal order-Held 
wife's conduct in not naming assailant highly improbable and 
unnatural-Accused entitled to benefit of doubt-Acquitted. 
\ 
~ 
The appellant was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. for commit-
ting the murder of the deceased. At the trial, prosecution produced 
P. W .3, wife of the deceased, and P. Ws.10, II and 12, all eye witnesses. 
Except for P. W .3, all other eye witnesses were declared hostile. Thus, 
the prosecution depended on the sole testimony of P. W.3. 
P. W. 3 deposed that she saw the appellant hitting her husband 
with a stick, But admittedly, she did not disclose the name of the appel-
lant to anybody including the Police. The doctor, who came to the house 
of the deceased little later, examined and treated the deceased and 
removed him to the hospital deposed that he was told by the mother of 
~ 
1£ 
the deceased that the family did not suspect anybody. Another witness 
who was passing by the scene of occurrence also testified that nobody 
informed him about the appellant or any other person, who injured the 
deceased. 
· 
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant. But, on 
F 
~ppeal, the High Court, set aside the acquittal order, and convicted and 
...,,, 
;entenced the appellant to imprisonment for life. Hence, the appeal by 
the accused. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
(} 
HELD: The conduct of the deceased's wife was highly unnatural. 
A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal blows with a stick to her 
husband, would name the assailant to all present and to the police at 
an earliest opportunity. There is nothing in the evidence to justify 
this highly unnatural and improbable conduct of the deceased's wife. 
Even her statement recorded by police head constable, is entirely diffe-
H rent than what she stated at the trial. The prosecution has, thus, not 
4UO 
. } 
S.D. PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA !KULDIP SINGH, J.l 401 
been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable 
doubt. [404F-G] 
Therefore, the appellant is given benefit of doubt, the judgment of 
1he High Court is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge 
under section 302, IPC. [404H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 75 of 1979. 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2.1976 of the Bombay 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 1973. 
Raghunath Singh (Amicus Curiae) for the Appellant. 
A.S. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The appellant, Shivaji Patil was acquitted 
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur of the charge under 
Section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one 
A 
B 
c 
D 
' 
Tulashiram Sutar, but on appeal the High Court by its judgment.dated 
_..(_ 
February 6, 1976 set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him 
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 
E 
imprisonment for life. 
The house of deceased Tulashiram in Village Rashivade ad joins 
the temple of Shri Ambabai and in front of the temple, there is open 
place. The deceased along with his wife Parvatibai, two children and · 
parents was living in the house. Cousin brothers of the deceased and 
F 
their mother were living in the ad joining house. 
Vyanku Sutar belonging to the brother-hood of deceased was 
also living in the same village. The deceased had illicit relation with 
Vyanku's wife Akkatai. Parvatibai claimed to have caught them in the 
sex-act in sugarcane fields. The accused Shivaji and Vyanku were 
G 
friends. 
On January 30, 1972 at about 7 or 7.30 P.M. Tulashiram 
returned to the house after performing his role described as 
"Sasankathi" in the festival of "Mahi Poornima". In the house 
Parvatibai, her mother-in-law Tanubai, her husband's sister Malutai, 
H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A and her husband's cousin brother's wife Shalubai, were present. The 
male members, namely, deceased's father Pandurang Sutar, his 
"brother Soundappa and servant named ·Shama had gone to another 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
village called Kote. Tulashiram asked his mother Tanubai to prepare 
tea and thereafter he went out and sat on the foot-steps of the temple 
at a distance of about 15 to 20 feet from the house. 
What followed can best 

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