LexSURESH THIPMPPA SHETTY versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 1135 : 2023 INSC 749 1135 CASE DETAILS SURESH THIPMPPA SHETTY v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2010) JULY 26, 2023 [VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellants-accused (A4 and A2) were convicted u/s.302, s.120B, IPC and sentenced accordingly. Whether High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the appeals fi led by them and upholding their conviction. Administration of Criminal Justice – Reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Conviction unsustainable: Held: There is suffi cient material on record giving rise to reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Appellants were able to poke holes in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW7 – This conclusion is only fortifi ed as co-accused A1 and A7 were acquitted and thus, the conspiracy angle dehors the said main conspirators, who are the masterminds as per the prosecution, cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Undisputedly, the four persons in the car on the fateful date were (1) the deceased; (2) PW1; (3) assailant/shooter, who is absconding, and (4) A3 – Admittedly, the appellants were not present at the spot where the crime was committed i.e., in the car nor any direct/specifi c role in commission of the off ence being attributed to them and thus, their convictions cannot be upheld – Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra reported as [1971] 1 SCR 119 relied on by the High Court does not, in any manner, militate against this Court overturning a conviction when reasonable doubt emanates – Appeals allowed. [Paras 13 and 17] Administration of Criminal Justice – Reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the prosecution: 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. Held: When this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence – Life and liberty are not matters to be trifl ed with, and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt – The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities – Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India – The presumption of innocence is a human right. [Paras 18 and 20] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala (2001) 7 SCC 596 – held inapplicable. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 391; Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 610; Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 10 SCC 699 : [2004] 3 SCR 1148; Ranjeetsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345; Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240 : [1978] 2 SCR 371 – relied on. Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 885 : [1971] 1 SCR 119; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkole, (2004) 13 SCC 308 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 780 – referred to. Coffi n v. United States, 156 US 432 (1895) – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1541 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2009 of the High Court of Bombay in CRLA No.50 of 2003. 1137 With Criminal Appeal No. 2346 of 2011. Appearances: Vinay Navre, Sr. Adv., P. R. Rajhans, Amarnath Gupta, Jayant Kumar, Janmejay Verma, Ms. Hardikaa, Vishal Arun, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Srilok Nath Rath, Ms. Reena Rao, Kashyap Kumar Dwivedi, Advs. for the Appellant. Rahul Chitnis, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals are directed against the common Final Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeals No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.