LexVITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 532
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 - Murder - Conviction on basis of circumstantial
t.Jvidence - HELD: The cumulative effect of the circumstances,
when considered in the background of legal principles
enshrined in the decisions of the Court, make it clear that the
accusations have been established by the prosecution -
D Circumstances highlighted by the trial court and the High
Court to find the accused guilty cannot be termed as perverse
- Conviction and sentence as recorded by trial court and
affirmed by High Court, upheld - Circumstantial evidence.
E
The accused-appellant was convicted uls 302 IPC on
the evidence establishing the circumstances that he was
last seen with the victim, the victim was lying dead in the
pool of blood and accused was not there, previous
enmity and, therefore, intention to commit the murder
F was proved; and the witnesses clearly referred to the
conduct of the accused for ill-treating and harassing the
victim prior to the date of incident. The High Court having
upheld the conviction, the accused filed the appeal.
G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The cumulative effect of the circumstances,
when considered in the background of legal principles
enshrined in the decisions of the Court, it is but clear that
the accusations have been established by the
H
532
..
.. ..
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 533
prosecution. The finding recorded by the trial court and
A
the High Court, on the basis of the circumstances
highlighted holding the accused guilty, cannot be termed
as perverse. Though the High Court's judgment is not
very elaborate, but that cannot take away the effect of
elaborate discussions made by the trial court to find the
B
accused guilty. The conduct of the accused also cannot
be lost sight of. He was absconding for 7 days. The
appeal has no merit. [Para 18] [541-E-G]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR
C
1984 SC 1622, relied on.
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State
of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder D
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram
v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and
Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy
v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U.P. v.
E
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar and Anr. Vs.. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1952 SC 343; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8)
SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003
(11) SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. 2008
F
(10 ) SCR 89; State of U.P. v. Salish 2005(3) SCC 114;
Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P. 2006 (10)
SCC 172 and Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab 2005 (12) SCC
438; Manivel and Ors. V. State ofT.N. 2008 (11) SCR 1036,
referred to.
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" {Chapter VI) by Sir
Alfred Wills, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1977 SC 1063
referred to
para 6
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 3 S.C.R.
* ..
A
AIR 1956 SC 316
referred to
para 6
AIR 1983 SC 446
referred to
para 6
AIR 1985 SC 1224
referred to
para 6
B
AIR 1987 SC 350
referred to
para 6
AIR 1989 SC 1890
referred to
para 6
AIR 1954 SC 621
referred to
para 6
~ -
(1996) 10 sec 193
referred to
para 7
c
AIR 1990 SC 79
referred to
para 8
1992 Crl.LJ 1104
referred to
para 9
AIR 1952 SC 343
referred to
para 12
D
AIR 1984 SC 1622
relied on
~
para 13
2003 (8) sec 180
referred to
para 14
2003 (11) sec 261
referred to
para 14
E
2008 (10) SCR 89
referred to
para 14
2005(3) sec 114
referred to
para 14
2006 (10) sec 112
referred to
para 16
•
~
F
2005 (12) sec 438
referred to
para 17
2008 (11) SCR 1036
referred to
para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 662 of 2007.
G
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.06 of the High
Court of Judicature of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 324/
;l
...
""'
2002.
..
Sushi! Karanjakar and K.N. Rai for the Appellants.
H
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 535
..,.
~
Anjani Kumar Mishra and Ravindra KeshavraExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.