STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RAJU BHASKAR POTPHODE

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 18-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
1-• 
v. 
RAJU BHASKAR POTPHODE 
JULY 18, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, Jl] 
t 
Penal Code, 1860; s. 302: 
"
c 
Murder-Accused allegedly committed murder ·of the deceased in the 
presehce of prosecution witnesses, close relatives of the deceased-FIR_:_ 
Charge sheet-Trial Court relying on evidence of PW2 convicted the accused 
for committing the offence punishable uls. 302 JPC and sentenced him to life 
imprisonment-Doubting the veracity of evidence of PW2, High Court 
acquitted him-On appeal, Held: Injured was not taken to Hospital by PW2 
D but by others-PW2 did not inform the police about the incident but left for 
his home-High Court rightly observed such conduct on the part of PW2 
~ 
quite unnatural-Though Investigating Officer claiming to have recorded the 
-+ 
statement of PW2 on the date of occurrence but PW2 himself stated that it 
was not recorded on that date-Jn the circumstances, High Court rightly 
E 
found his presence at the time of occurrence highly doubtful and discarded 
his testimony-Reasons given by the High Court while discarding the 
testimony of PW2 and consequent(v directing acquittal of the accused do not 
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference-Evidence-Eye witnesses-
Testimony of 
F 
In a cricket competition, boys of a locality of Jogeshwari (E) in Mumbai 
participated. On a trivial issue there start_ed a quarrel between two boys, one 
~-
was the brother of the accused and the other was the deceased. The altercation 
was allegedly witnessed by another participant, the respondent, who intervened · 
and started taking the side of his brother. Other members of the Cricket Club . 
also intervened to pacify the situation and asked the respondent-accused to 
G leave to platground. It is further alleged that respondent left the field but 
returned back with a knife and stabbed the deceasd on his abdomen. The 
deceased collapsed on the ground. The respondent threatened others for dire 
consequences and ran away. The deceased was taken to a Hospital, where he 
t· 
was declared brought dead. Later, the first informant, PW 1 went to the Police 
H 
396 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJU BHASKAR POTPHODE 
397 
~ ~-
Station and lodged an FIR. The dead body was sent for post-mortem A 
examination. The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses and 
on the next day, the accused was arrested from his residence. His clothes 
were attached under the seizure panchanama in the presence of two panchas, 
PW 8 and PW 9. The blood stains were found on the clothes of the accused. 
The accused was interrogated in presence of the panchas and weapon of crime 
was recovered at his instance. After completion of investigation, the accused 
was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC in the court of 
i 
the Metropolitan Magistrate. Trial Court examined 12 witnesses. However, 
, 
expect PW-2 others resiled from the statements made during investigation. 
B, 
PW-1 partially supported the prosecution version but claimed that he had not 
seen the occurrenct. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of PW- C 
2 ·recorded conviction of the accused for committing the offence punishable 
u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court analysed 
the evidence of PW-2 in detail considering the fact that he was a close relative 
of the deceased. However, it found that evidence of PW-2 to be unreliable and 
not worthy of credence and accordingly directed the acquittal of the accused. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that there is no reason for PW-2 to falsely 
implicate the accused; and that his presence was but natural and the aspects 
highlighted by the High Court about the credibility of bis evidence are not 
founded on any rational basis. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. None of the relatives came near the spot. The injured was 
taken to the hospital by others. High Court found it unnatural that PW-2 did 
D 
E 
not bother to provide medical assistance. He also did not inform the police. F 
He claimed to have left for his home. Whether he came back or not is another 
doubtful question because he himself admitted in cross-examination that he 
stayed at home. As rightly observed by the High Court it is quite unnatural 
conduct on the part ofa close relative tbat he would leave the relative in a 
pool of blood not bothering to take him to the hospital and nor to return after 
having left the spot. 

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