SUNIL BALKRISHNA BHOIR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 669 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUNIL BALKRISHNA BHOIR 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MAY 15, 2007 
[S.8. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.3021149-Common object-Vital injury caused to deceased by accused 
no.2, while other injuries found on his person only by blows-No specific C 
overt act attributed to appellant-Appellants were not armed-Witnesses did 
not identify them in Test Identification parade-Hence, appellants did not 
form common object to cause death of deceased 
Prosecution case was that on the fateful day at 7.30 P.M. deceased and 
his friend PW-1 were standing in front of deceased's house. All the accused D 
persons came there. Accused no. 1 started quarreling with deceased over a 
gold pendant At that the accused No. 2 caught hold of the shirt of the deceased, 
a scuffle ensued between the accused No. 2 and the deceased. P.W. 1, wife of 
the accused No. 1 intervened and separated them. 
At about 9 P.M., when deceased was taking dinner in his house, PW-1 E 
was sitting in the front room. PW-I saw accused persons standing in front of 
the deceased's house. Accused No. 2 was having a knife and the accused Nos. 
3 to 6 were having swords in their hands. PW-1 was assaulted by accused no. 
3 by a sword by its blunt side on the shoulder, whereafter the accused entered 
into the house of the deceased. Father of the deceased who examined himself F 
as P.W. 5 tried to resist them and in the process, caught hold of the sword 
which was in the hands of the accused no. 6 resulting in sustaining of bleeding 
injuries. The accused allegedly entered into the room. The deceased was 
assaulted with kicks and fist blows. Accused No. 2, stabbed the deceased with 
a knife. While the accused persons were going out of the house, 'B', brother 
of the deceased came whereupon accused No. 2 asked him not to enter into G 
the house. While P.W. 1 was going to report the matter to the police Outpost, 
he met the other brother of the deceased. The deceased was taken to hospital 
where doctor declared him dead. Trial Court convicted accused persons. High 
669 
H 
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A Court upheld the same. During pendency of trial or appeal, accused no.l to 3 
expired. 
B 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that they were not armed 
and were not known to deceased or his family and had no motive to commit 
crime. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l. Indisputably, a vital injury was caused to the deceased by the 
accused no. 2, while other injuries found on his person were caused only by 
blows. The accused No. 3 is said to have caused injury to P.W. 1, but no specific 
C overt act was attributed to any of the appellants. No witness stated before the 
trial court in regard to the specific roles played by each of the appellants. 
[Para 8) [674-GJ 
2. Admittedly, test identification parades were held for identification of 
the accused persons. The first test identification parade was held only in 
D respect of accused Nos. l to 4, whereas the second test identification parade 
was held in resped of accused Nos. 5 to 7. It is, therefore, evident that even 
the identity of the appellants was in doubt Even the full name of the appellant 
-r· 
was not disclosed in the First Information Report He in the test identification 
parade was not identified by witnesses and even the first informant K and was 
""(' 
identified only by the father of the deceased. Even father of deceased did not 
E attribute any specific overt act so far as the appellant is concerned. He did 
not say that appellant was having any weapon. P. W.s 2 to 4 did not identify the 
accused No. 4 and accused No. 7. 
[Paras 9,10 and 11) [675-A, B, CJ 
F 
3. Indisputably, all the witnesses are interested witnesses. P.W. 1 was 
the complainant P.W. 2 was allegedly at the relevant time have been named to 
the deceased. P.W. 4 is brother of the deceased. P.W. 5, was the father of the 
deceased. P.W. 3 was also one of the brothers of the deceased. 
~ 
[Para 12) (675-D, El 
G 
4. The Trial Judge did not place any reliance whatsoever on the evidence 
H 
of P.W. 3 and P.W. 5. Only one stab injury was inflicted on the deceased by 
accused No. 2. It was not repeated. (Para 13) (675-E, F) 
5. The Trial Judge as also the High Court proceeded on the basis that 
for establishing common object, no prior meeting of mind was necessary. 
SUNIL BALKRJSHNA BHOIR '" STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
67 J 
According to the courts below, it may develop on the spot. The dispute

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