STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DINESH

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 07-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
DINESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1871-1873 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 07, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – Murder and destruction of evidence –
Prosecution alleged that accused no.1 committed murder and
accused no.2-respondent destroyed the evidence by cutting the
corpse of the deceased into pieces and disposing them –Trial Court
convicted accused no.1 u/s. 302 and s. 201 r/w. s.34 and accused
no.2-respondent u/s. 201 r/w. s.34 – High Court acquitted both the
accused persons – On appeal, held: State failed to furnish correct
address of the accused no.1 for effecting service in the criminal
appeals – Consequently, criminal appeals against accused no.1
dismissed for non-prosecution – Insofar as accused no.2-respondent
is concerned, on perusal of the evidence on the record, out of 23
prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PW-7 was crucial as she was
presented as the sole eye-witness who had seen the accused no.2-
respondent along with accused no.1, cutting the corpse of the
deceased into pieces – When the entire case hinges on the evidence
of a sole witness, a paramount duty is cast on the Court to carefully
scrutinize such evidence and find out whether such evidence is worth
credence or not – According to PW-7, her husband also witnessed
the crime, but they could not identify whether the accused were
cutting into pieces the body of a dead person or an alive person –
Even after watching the brutal crime, neither PW-7 nor her husband
had raised hue and cry in the vicinity which was stated to be thickly
populated, but they went to sleep peacefully – Unnatural manner
in which PW-7 kept quiet for one and half month after witnessing
such a brutal crime – Further, husband of PW-7 was neither examined
by the police at the time of investigation nor was examined before
the Court and no satisfactory explanation for his non-examination
was found from the records – Apart from that, neither test
identification parade was conducted nor any steps were taken to
prove the blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found
on the alleged weapon used in the crime – Not safe to convict an
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 515
515
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
accused solely relying on evidence of PW-7 – Therefore, judgment
of the High Court affirmed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The appellant-State of Maharashtra has not
complied with the directions of Judge-in-Chamber i.e. to furnish
the latest and correct address of the unserved common sole
respondent-accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1872 & 1873
of 2013. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of
2013 stood dismissed for non prosecution.  [Para 5] [519-A-B]
2.1  In the remaining case, namely, Criminal Appeal No.
1871 of 2013 against respondent herein i.e. accused No. 2, out of
23 prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PW7 is crucial as she
was presented as the sole eye-witness who had seen the accused
No. 2 along with accused No. 1, cutting the corpse of the deceased
into pieces. Apparently, there was no other witness who had last
seen the accused in the company of deceased prior to the place
and time of occurrence. When the entire case hinges on the
evidence of a sole witness, a paramount duty is cast on the Court
to carefully scrutinize such evidence and find out whether such
evidence is worth credence or not. [Para 7] [519-C-D]
2.2  The evidence of PW7 in the present case needs a
careful consideration. Admittedly, PW7 had witnessed the crime
being committed by the accused at about 10.30 p.m. in the night
and there was no electricity at the alleged scene of offence.
According to PW7, her husband also witnessed the crime, but
they could not identify whether the accused were cutting into
pieces the body of a dead person or an alive person. Even after
watching the brutal crime, neither PW7 nor her husband had raised
hue and cry in the vicinity which was stated to be thickly populated,
but they went to sleep peacefully and thereafter led normal life.
There is also no dispute that PW7 did not identify the respondent
herein-accused No. 2 and her statement was recorded after a
gap of one and half month from the date of incident. [Para 9] [520-
B-C]
2.3  After considering the evidence of PW7, the
circumstances of the entire case and also the evidences of other
prosecution witnesses, it is found that husband of P.W.7, who
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
was also stated to be an eyewitness to the incide

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