STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus TULSHIRAM BHANUDAS KAMBLE AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 21-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
. v. 
TULSHIRAM BHANUDAS KAMBLE AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, /860-ss.3021149, 4521149-Criminal trespass by 15 
accused-Jn the house of deceased-With deadly weapons-Causing death 
A 
B 
of two and injuries to three persons-Five eyewitnesses including injured C 
eye-witnesses-Trial Court acquitting four of the accused while convicting 
others u!ss.3021149, 3241149 and 4521149-High Court altering the 
conviction from 4521149 to u/s 452134, whereas acquitting all the accused 
of rest of the charges-On appeal, held: Interference by High Court with 
conviction u/s 3021149 not justified-High Court having accepted the case 
of criminal trespass, not justified in passing acquittal u/s 3021149-The D 
conviction and sentence of the accused u/s 4521149 by Trial Court upheld-
However, in absence of State appeal before High Court seeking enhancement 
of their sentence, the same cannot be enhanced. 
Evidence-Injured eye-witness-Testimony-Evidentiary value of-Held: 
Although in accepting such witness, caution is required to be maintained- E 
But the same cannot be discarded only because they were inimical to the 
other party. 
Maxim-'Fa/sus in uno falsus in omnibus'-Applicabi/ity of 
Criminal Law-Common object-Appreciation of-Held: Once formation F 
of common object amongst the accused is proved, it is not necessary for the 
·court to consider the specific overt act played by each of them. 
Appeal-Appeal against acquittal-Scope of-Held: When two views 
are possible, Supreme Court cannot interfere with such" case-But when there 
exist substantial and co;,,pelling reasons and interference is just and proper, G 
Supreme Court cannot refuse to interfere-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 136. 
Appellants-accused alongwith others (in all JS persons) were tried for 
I~ 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A having caused death of two ~ersons and caus'ed injuries to others. Prosecution 
~ .. 
case was that the appellants-accused· alongwith others came to the house of 
one of the deceased.arinoo with d~adly weaponS. Tti'et~; they caused death of 
two persons and caused injuries to three of the eye-witnesses namely PWs 
7,8 and 11. Other eye-witnesses."tothe in~idJn't were PWs 12 and 13. All the 
.B 
:~~u
1
s;~.were charge-sheeted u/ss. 147, 1~~··'.~~4~\~;0~, 30, ~23, 32, 188 and 
Trial Court acquitted Accused Nos. 3,4, 12 and 13 of all the charges. 
All the accused were acquitted of charges uis 307 r/w 1'49 IPC. Accu~ed Nos. 
·1, 2,·6, 10 and 11 were convicted of the charges u/s 302 r/w s.149. Accused 
C Nos; 1, 10 and 14 were further convicted for charge u/s 324 r/w s. 149 IPC 
and Accused No. 1,2 and 5 to .11, 14 and 15 were convictCd for charge u/s 452 · 
r/w s.149 IPC. 
·Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 to 14.filed an appeat High Court converted the 
conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 7, lO and114Jrom that under·s. 452 r/w s.149 
D to that murder s.452 r/w s.34. The acc'used· were acquitted of rest of the 
charges. Hence the present appeals. 
' -,; 
.; 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has not assigned cogent or sufficient 
E 
reas~ns for disagreeing with !he findings of the trial c~urt. The judgment' of 
the High Court, is based on surmises and conjectures. This is not a case 
where the High Court should have interfered with the conviction by the trial 
court under Section 302 IPC. Thus, by reason of the judgment of the High 
Col!rt, a greatmiscarriage of justice has taken place. It is well settled that 
when the reasoning of the High Court is perverse, the Supreme Court can 
F set aside the judgment of the High Court of acquittal'and restore th-e judgment 
of conviction·aild sentence passed by the trial court !Para 40) (199~D,'E) 
I 
:.:·, 
;:•·,,· 
State of UP. v. Nawab Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 84, relied on. 
:k2. The facts of the case lead to the inevitable conclusion that appellants 
G had come with arms and deadly weapons .to the house·of the coinplainant party 
and with the common intention and common object to kill the complainant 
party. Each one of the appellants herein was armed with deadly weapons. They 
+ 
came together and death was caused to the deceased. They entered into the 
house. Two of the appellants had inflicted ·blows with siVords:Coinmon object 
H on the part of each of the appellants stands proved. Once formation of common 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1•. TULSHIRAMBHANUDASKAMBLE 
187 
object amongst the accused is proved, it

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