LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus PRAKASH SAKHA VASAVE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 450
A
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A.. "
v.
PRAKASH SAKHA VASAVE AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2004)
B
JANUARY 21, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302134 - Murder - By three
c accused - Eye-witnesses to the incident - Motive proved -
No overt act attributed to third accused - Conviction by trial
Court - Accused 1 and 2 sentenced to death and accused 3
sentenced to life imprisonment - Acquittal by High Court on
the ground interalia that version of eye-witnesses not reliable
D and that there was delay in lodging FIR - On appeal, held:
{
On facts, evidence of eye-witnesses reliable - [?easons
>-
indicated for acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2 not justified -
However, their case does not fall in the category of rarest of
rare case - Hence, sentenced to life imprisonment - Acquittal
E of third accused is justified.
Appellants-accused were prosecuted for having
caused death of one person. According to prosecution,
appellant Nos.1 and 2 were the brothers and appellant
F
No.3 was the uncle of the wife of the deceased. They
were annoyed with the deceased because he was having
illicit relationship with another woman. PWs.3, 4 and 6
were the eye-witnesses. All the three accused were
convicted uls.302134 IPC. Accused 1 and 2 were awarded
death sentence while accused 3 was given life
G imprisonment.
High Court acquitted all the accused on the grounds
that there was delay in lodging FIR and the place of its
recording was doubtful; that PW3 did not speak about the
H
450
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. PRAKASH SAKHA VASAVE 451
AND ORS.
assault by A2 with knife; that no overt act was attributed A
by PW6 to A-3; that PW4 did not say that the axe was
fixed on the head; and that evidence of PW2 was full of
contradictions as there was discrepancy about the
recovery. Hence the present appeal.
Party allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1.1. High Court was not justified in directing
acquittal of A 1 and A2. The conclusion of the High Court
is erroneous because PW-4 in his evidence has
categorically stated that the deceased was having injury c
on his body due to assault by means of axes. One axe
was found inserted in the bone of head near the left ear.
The handle of that axe was in a broken condition.
..
According to the evidence, the axe was inserted near
\
"'
about 4 to 5 inches in the head. [Paras 6 and 5) [455-F-
D
H; 456-G]
1.2. The High Court has come to an absurd
conclusion that the eye- witnesses PWs 3 and 6 gave
account of 4 to 5 external injuries but the witnesses did
E
not utter a single word about remaining 15 injuries. A
witness who witnesses an attack on another by three
persons armed is not supposed to go on counting
"'
number of assaults on the parts of the body where the
injuries were inflicted. They had categorically stated about
F
the external injuries. PWs 3 and 4 came running after
hearing shout of the deceased. So it was possible that
they had not noticed the injuries which were earlier
sustained due to assaults. They appeared at the spot
when the assault was continuing. PW-4, in his cross-
examination, had stated that on hearing shout of the G
deceased he rushed towards him and reached there
within a short time. When he reached at the spot of
incident, at that time the deceased was lying on the
ground having injuries on his person. There is practically
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 1 S.C.R.
A no cross- examination of any of the eye-witnesses i.e.
A.
PWs 3, 4 and 6 on the assault part. [Para 5] (456-A-E]
1.3. So far as the delay in lodging the First
Information Report is concerned, it has been accepted
B that the informant went to the wrong police station first.
That clearly explains the delay. [Para 6] (456-F-G]
1.4. However, In view of the facts of the case, It is
apparent that the accused persons were annoyed with
the deceased because of his having illicit relationship
c with another lady while his wife was alive. The case does
not fall to the rarest of rare category. The appropriate
sentence would be life imprisonment. [Para 6] (457-A-B]
2. So far as A-3 is concerned, the High Court has
D indicated sufficient reasons for holding him not guilty.
(
Same needs no interference. [Para 6] (456-G-H]
,..
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 654 of 2004.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2002 of the
High Court of Judicature of Bombay, BeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.