SUBHASH HARNARAYANJI LADDHA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 05-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUBHASH HARNARA Y ANJI LADDHA 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
DECEMBER 5, 2006 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860; Ss. 302, 364, 465, 467, 47 I rlw S. I 20B: 
Conspiracy and murder-Land/property belonging to deceased allegedly 
C sold by accused by forging power of attorney-Hatching of conspiracy and 
committed murder of the deceased misappropriated the amount received in 
consideration of sale proceeds of the land/property-FIR-Charge-sheet 
against accused Nos. I to 5-Trial Court found accused persons guilty of 
committing crime u!ss. 302, 364, 465, 467 and 471 rlw S. I 20B and convicted 
D and sentenced them accordingly-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: 
In conspiracy to forge power of attorney, involvement of accused-appellants 
not proved-Purported agreement to sell having not proved, contents thereof 
wholly inadmissible in evidence-Therefore, no part thereof including 
consideration amount specified therein could be used by the prosecution 
against accused-No allegation imputed against accused-appellants in a 
E report filed by the wife of the deceased-No evidence brought on record to 
show involvement of accused persons-Since deal about selling of land was 
stated to be settled between the deceased and PW25, inference could not be 
drawn about involvement of accused in both conspiracies-Conspiracy having 
not been established as regards commission of forgery, the larger conspiracy 
F of committing the murder could not be established/proved-Suspicion, however 
grave, is no substitute for proof-Circumstantial evidence insufficient to 
prove pre concert amongst the accused persons-Hence accused entitled to 
benefit of doubt-Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside-Evidence-
Circumstantial evidence. 
G 
Deceased purported to have entered into an agreement of sale in respect 
H 
of certain land with the appellants on consideration amount of fifteen lakh 
rupees. An advertisement for sale of the land/properties in question was issued 
in a newspaper on 26.7.2000. Admittedly, a Deed of Sale was executed by the 
. 
. 
accused No.I in favour of the appellants for certain sale consideration on 
40 
SUBHASH HARNARA Y ANJI LADDHA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
41 
8.8.2000. There exists a dispute as to whether he had accepted a sum of A 
Rs.75,000/- or a sum of Rs.2 lakhs by way of earnest money. A purported 
General Power of Attorney is said to have been executed by the deceased in 
favour of accused no.I. Accused No.5 has allegedly impersonated as the 
deceased. Later, the power of attorney was found to be a forged one. As the 
deceased was found missing since 3.9.2000, a report to that effect was lodged B 
by his wife (PW38), but the deceased could not be traced out. She filed another 
report. The High Court recorded the principal allegations contained in the 
report that she was informed by her husband that a deal for selling the land/ 
property was settled with PW25, who had given a sum ofRs.75,000/- by way 
of earnest money and in that view of the matter she suspected that Accused 
No.1 might have abducted her husband and kept him confined to some place C 
or might have caused danger to his life in order to grab the amount received 
~y him on the basis of the forged general power of attorney. On the basis of 
the report, a First Information Report was registered by the police under 
Section 364 IPC. In the meanwhile a dead body was found by the Police. A 
First Information Report was also recorded by the Police. On the same day 
accused, PWl surrendered before the Police. He informed the investigat~ng 
officer that the deceased was murdered by Accused No.1. He turned out an 
approver. In his statement he furnished details as to how the deceased had 
been murdered. He also disclosed the role played by him at the instance of 
accused No.I. 
A charge-sheet was filed by the Police against accused No. I for 
committing the crime under Sections 364, 302, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 read 
with Section 34 IPC and accused Nos.2 to 4 for committing the crime under 
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The statement of PWl 
was recorded under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after grant 
D 
E 
of pardon to him. Initially charges were not framed against Accused Nos. 2 to F 
4 under Sections 302 and 1028 of the Indian Penal Code but later the same 
were altered by an order dated 20.7.2004. The appellants were convicted by 
the Trial Judge for the offence alleged and sente

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