SURESH SAKHARAM NANGARE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1186 · Decided: 21-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 1186 
SURESH SAKHARAM NANGARE 
V. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1606 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss.302134 and 201134 - A-1 alongwith A-2 and A-3 stated 
to have committed the· murder of his younger brother by 
setting him on fire - A-2 turned approver - Trial court 
convicting A-1and A-3 - Appeal by A-3 only - Conviction and 
sentence of life imprisonment affirmed by High Court -- Held: 
0 
Except the evidence of approver, there is nothing on record 
to inculpate the appellant - Even if the evidence of approver 
is accepted, the role attributed to appel/ant is that he caught 
hold of the legs of the deceased as directed by A-1, after the 
latter had finished his work of assaulting the deceased -
E Besides, the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, opined 
that the death occurred due to 100% burns and not because 
of assault - This categorical evidence makes it clear that the 
appellant had nothing to do with the same since the evidence 
brought in shows that it was A-1 who took the deceased to the 
other room where he burnt him to death - This important 
F aspect has not been considered by trial court as well as by 
High Court - Prosecution failed to establish the guilt insofar 
as appellant is concerned - Both the courts below committed 
an error in convicting him u/ss 302 and 201 read with s.34 of 
/PC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life -
G Accordingly, both the orders are set aside, and appellant is 
acquitted. 
s. 34 - Common intention - Explained. 
H 
1186 
SURESH SAKHARAM NANGARE v. STATE OF 
1187 
MAHARASHTRA 
The appellant (original A-3) was charged alongwith 
A 
original A-1 for committing the murder of latter's younger 
brother. The prosecution case was that A-1 was addicted 
to ganja and liquor and used to ill-treat his wife (PW-2) 
and other members of the family including the deceased 
because of which all the family members except A-1 
B 
shifted to a different locality. The deceased, who was 
suffering from deformity and loss of speech used to 
intervene whenever A-1 assaulted his wife and children, 
and due to this, A-1 wanted to get rid of the deceased. 
On 2.3.1995, A-1 came to his other brother (PW-1) and c 
took the deceased to his house on the pretext of 
performing 'pooja'. On 3.3.1995 between 10.30 A.M. and 
11.00 P.M., PW-1 was informed that his younger brother 
had expired of burn injuries. PW-1 lodged an FIR against 
A-1. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet 0 
against three accused, namely, A-1, A-2 and A-3. During 
the trial A-2 turned approver and was examined as PW 
7. The trial court convicted A-1 and A-3 u/ss 302/34 and 
201/34 and sentenced both of them to imprisonment for 
life. A-3 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal filed by A-3, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 The first witness examined by the 
prosecution was PW-1, who deposed that A-3 and A-2 
F 
came to his house and told him that the deceased had 
committed suicide by setting himself on fire. This 
deposition of PW-1 shows that he has not implicated the 
appellant (A-3) in the crime. PW-2, the wife of A-1 narrated 
about the conduct of her husband as well as the 
G 
disability of the deceased. According to her, the 
deceased was unable to speak and both his hands were 
disabled and he had flexed fingers. She also explained 
about the habits of her husband (A-1) and complained 
H 
1188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A that he was addicted to Ganja and liquor and used to beat 
her and her children because of which she used to go 
to her parents house. In the entire evidence, she has not 
implicated the appellant. PW-3 and PW-4, the neighbours, 
though explained about the conduct and character of A-
B 1 and his brother, there is not even a whisper about the 
role of the appellant in the commission of the crime. [para 
8-10] [1194-F-G; 1195-B-F] 
1.2 The only person, who named the appellant is PW-
5, who was also residing next to the house of A-1. She 
C deposed that she knew all the accused persons. On the 
day of incident, at about 07:45 p.m., she noticed the 
appellant coming out of the house of A-1 in a frightened 
state. She identified the appellant in the court. She further 
deposed that she heard the shouts of A-1 that the 
D deceased had set himself on fire. Thus, a perusal of the 
evidence of PW-5 shows that at the time of occurrence, 
the appellant was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.