LexSUNIL MAHADEO JADHAV versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 16 S.C.R. 910 SUNIL MAHADEO JADHAV V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2007) NOVEMBER 19, 2013 [A. K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 342, 218, 193 rlw. s. 34 - C Custodial death - Prosecution of police officials - Circumstantial evidence - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: Since the arrest Panchnama and Arrest Register have been duly proved by PWs 21 and 22 and there is no evidence to show that they o were fabricated, the accused cannot be held guilty u/ss. 218 and 193 - The accused also cannot be convicted uls. 342 -- ----- because the deceased was a co-accused in a kidnapping case - The injuries on the deceased noticed in the post mortem, which were the cause of death, were not described E in Arrest Panchnama - Therefore, it would be inferred that those injuries were caused to the deceased while in police custody - It is established that the deceased was last in the custody of accused No. 1 in the police lock-up - The burden to prove the injuries was on accused No. 1, which he failed - F Therefore, aqcused No. 1 would be held responsible for the injuries - The circumstances of the case established that accused No. 1 did not intend to cause death, he can be held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder uls. 304 - His conviction altered to one uls. 304 from 302 - Hence, . G his sentence reduced to seven years RI with fine of Rs. 30001 - - Since accused Nos. 2 and 3 left the Police Station soon after the arrest, the deceased cannot be p said to be in their custody - Hence, they cannot be held responsible for the fatal injuries on the deceased - Therefore, their conviction set aside - Evidence Act, 1872 .- s. 106. H 910 SUNIL MAHADEO JADHAV v. THE STATE OF 911 MAHARASHTRA The appellants-accused, the police officials, were A prosecuted for custodial death of one person. The prosecution case was that the deceased was suspect in a kidnapping case. He was arrested from his house in the midnight intervening 16.12.1985 and 17.12.1985 and then lodged in police lock-up. In the morning of 17.12.1985, the deceased was found dead. The three appellants-accused were prosecuted u/ss. 342/ 34, 331/34, 326/34, 302/34, 218/ 34 and 193/34 IPC. Other eight police officials in the police station were also prosecuted u/ss. 218 a.nd 193 r/w. s. 34 IPC. B c The defence of the accused persons was that the deceased person was not picked up from his house, but from a Chowk. At the time of preparation of Arrest Panchnama, a number of injuries on the body of the deceased were noticed and recorded and, therefore, the D accused persons were not responsible for the injuries. Trial court acquitted all the accused of all the charges. High Court convicted the appellants-accused (accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3) u/ss. 302, 342, 218 and 193 r/w. s. 34 IPC. The acquittal order, in respect of other accused was maintained by the High Court. Hence the present appeals by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Allowing the appeals filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and partly allowing the appeal of accused No. 1, the Court E F HELD: 1.1. In the present case, there is no direct evidence of an eye-witness on how the deceased suffered the injuries which has caused his death and therefore the High Court has relied on circumstantial G evidence to convict the appellants for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. In a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence a case against accused can be said to be fully established if the following conditions are fulfilled: (1) The circumstances from which H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R. A the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The facts so established sh.ould be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;(4) They should exclude B every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have c been done by the accused. [Para 20] [928-E-H; 929-A] Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 sec 116 : 1985 (1) SCR 88 - relied on. 1.2. The first circumstance on which t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.