UMESH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 07-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UMESH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
FEBRUARY 7, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302-Murder-/ncident seen by two 
eyewitnesses-Recovery and seizure of weapon and blood stained clothes at 
A 
B 
the instance of the accused-Non-examination of informant-Evidence of 
eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and Report. of Chemical C 
Analyst-Conviction bycourts belo~n appeal, held: Convictionjustified-
Evidence of eye-witnesses is cogent, reliable and convincing-Offence is 
proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having committed murder of one D 
person. As per prosecution the informant was told by a person that the dead 
body of deceased was lying near a shop. He went there and lodged FIR. The 
weapon used for the occurrence and the blood stained clothes were recovered_ 
and seized· at the instance of the appellant-accused. PWs 1 and 2 were 
examined as eye-witnesses. However the informant and the owner of the shop 
where the body of the deceased were lying, were not examined. Trial Court E 
convicted the accused under section 302 IPC. The conviction was upheld by 
High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. In the teeth of the reliable and convincing evidence, which 
has come on record, there is no other option but to accept the finding recorded 
and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on reappraisal of the entire 
evidence on record to hold that it was the appellant and none else who has 
committed the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has been able to G 
establish the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. !Para 14) 
, ·t_ 
[326-F-G] 
2. The eyewitnesses PWs-1 and 2 are natural and truthful witnesses. 
Their evidence is cogent, reliable and convincing and there is no good reason 
n1 
H 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R. 
A to disbelieve and discard their consistent and truthful version. It is well-settled 
that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. There is no 
set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground 
that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate the evidence in 
a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. The evidence of the eye-witnesses 
finds corroboration from the medical evidence. It also cannot be said that the 
B evidence needs to be discarded on the simple ground that they are interested 
witnesses. (Para 11 and 12] (325-E-G] 
3. The version of the eye-witnesses was further corroborated by the 
presence of blood of 'B' group on the shirt of the appellant, which was recovered 
C at his instance from his house in the presence of the panch witness (PW-3) 
in whose presence the disclosure statement (Exh. 39) was made by the appellant 
to the investigating officer. The report of the Chemical Analyst would reveal 
that the shirt of the appellant was stained with blood of 'B' group matching 
with the blood group of the deceased. The appellant has cross- examined PW-
3 at length, but he could not shatter the evidence of the panch witness to 
D dislodge his evidence in regard to the recovery of blood-stained shirt at the 
instance of the appellant from his house pursuant to disclosure statement 
(Ex. 39) made by the appellant. (Para 14( (326-D-E] 
E 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 23.8.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 196/2001. 
Arvincl Kumar, Laxmi Arvind, Poonam Prasad and Anuj Kumar for the 
Appellant. 
Sushi! Karanjkar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. I. Umesh, the accused in Sessions 
G Case No. 15 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Amravati, is the 
appellant before us. 
H 
2. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code (for Short '!PC') for committing the murder ofDilip Ganpatrao Shirbhate 
on 26.11.1997. 
j. 
j-
' 
UMESH '"STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J.] 
323 
3. The broad facts giving rise to this appeal may be set out briefly. 
A 
4. The prosecution case is that on 26.11.1997 in the midnight Vasant 
Shankarrao Bijwe, resident of Vivekanand Colony, Warud, lodged a report 
(Ext. 32) at Warud Police Station, Sub-division Morshi, District Amravati, 
alleging that when he was sleeping in his house, one Anil Ramrao Gulhane, 
resident of Warud,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.