SUDARSHAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 23-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 6 S.C.R. 437 
SUDARSHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2014) 
MAY 23, 2014 
[DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rw s. 34 -
Murder and 
common intention - Complainant, his friends and deceased 
persons gathered at a place to celebrate - Two appellants C · 
along with others went to that place - Two appellants armed 
with weapons assaulted the deceased persons which resulted 
in their death - Appellants were known to the complainant -
FIR lodged -
Conviction u/s:302!34, by courts be.fow -
Correctness of - Held: FIR appears to be ante-timed which 
D 
gets strengthened on the glaring and intriguing events taking 
place thereafter - Facts sufficient to hold that appellants may 
have been roped in falsely at a later point of time - Courts 
below did not appreciate the circumstances which go to the 
root of the matter and raise sufficient doubt about the 
involvements of the appellants - Thus, _appellants entitled to 
benefit of doubt - Case against them not proved beyond 
reasonable doubt so as to uphold their conviction -
Conviction of the appellants set aside. 
E 
F 
The complainant along with his friends went to place 
'J', holiday resort to celebrate his new acquisition, a 
motorcycle. They reached around afternoon anct"started 
preparing meals. The two deceased persons reached 
later and started playing cards at some distance. 
G 
Thereafter, 8-10 persons reached the spot. The 
appellants, armed with weapons assaulted the deceased 
persons, resulting in their death. Thereafter, the 
appellants and others fled away. The complainant threw 
437 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A away all the eating material and rushed to the brother of 
'B', who attended the party. Subsequently, the 
complainant and his friends went to the house of 
advocate 'R' at place 'C' and on his advise the FIR was 
registered against the appellants and others, at place 'C' 
B police station. The appellants were known to the 
complainant. Since the place of incident was not within 
the jurisdiction of 'C' police station, intimation was given 
at place 'B' police station and FIR was registered therein. 
The appellants were convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 rw 
C s. 34 IPC by the courts below. Others-A3 to A13 were 
acquitted of all the charges. Hence, the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is suffieient merit in the submission 
[). that the FIR itself was ante-timed with sole intention to 
rope in the appellants; that the conduct of the 
complainant to go to the house of Advocate 'R' at place 
'C' after the incident, instead of heading to the Police 
E Station to report the incident, depicted an abnormal 
behaviour which was enough to ring alarm on the 
genuineness of prosecution story. It was pointed out that 
on the purported advice of the said Advocate, FIR was 
lodged with Police Station 'C', which was not the 
F concerned Police Station within whose jurisdiction the 
incident had occurred. The concerned Police Station was 
at place 'B' Police Station; that no doubt, the Police 
Officer who registered the FIR at place 'C' called the 
concerned officer from place 'B' Police Station, who took 
G over the matter and conducted the inquest proceedings, 
the entire sequence was shrouded in mystery and the FIR 
was ante-timed, which could be inferred from other 
various circumstances. These facts are sufficient to hold 
that the appellants may have been roped in falsely at a 
H 
SUDARSHAN AND ANR. v. STATE OF 
439 
MAHARASHTRA 
later point of time, which entitles them to be given the 
A 
benefit of doubt. (Paras 8, 9] (446-H; 447-A-F] 
1.2. No doubt, different persons may react differently 
to the same situation. However, at the same time, it 
appears very improbable that when there were as many 
B 
as 15 to 20 persons, namely, the complainant and his 
friends, none of them even thought of going to the Police 
Station to report the matter, which is odd and out of 
ordinary behaviour in such cases. Instead, they chose to _ 
go to an Advocate, who was staying at a distance of 15 c 
kms. The persons who were allegedly very scared would 
not take the risk of going a distance of 15 kms. rather than 
approaching the nearby Police Station within the 
jurisdiction of the area where the incident had taken 
plac.e. The High Court has downplayed this unusual and 
D 
abnormal conducts in a cavaliar manner (Para 12, 13] 
[448-E; 449-E-G] 
1.3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.