LexYUVARAJ AMBAR MOHITE versus STTE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- YUV ARAJ AMBAR MOH I TE A v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA OCTOBER 19, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860--Section 302-Murder-Conviction by Courts below on circumstantial evidence i.e. accused last seen with deceased and evidence of witnesses-Challenge to-Held: Conviction upheld-Deposition of witnesses showed that deceased was last seen with accused-Accused C remained with deceased for considerable time immediately prior to her death- No reason as to why prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate accused- Sufficient description of accused was given in FIR-He was arrested soon thereafter-Circumstances brought on record by prosecution clearly demonstrate that it was accused alone who committed the murder and in that D view of the matter absence of motive would be immaterial-Evidence- Circumstantial evidence-"Last seen" theory. According to the prosecution, Appellant committed the offence of murdering the foster sister of PWI. The Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted Appellant placing reliance upon the testimony of PWs 1, 3 E and 4. PW3, a child witness is the son of PWt while PW4 is the younger sister of the deceased .. On the fateful day, deceased was last seen with Appellant at her residence. She allegedly took liquor with Appellant after taking meals and Appellant remained with her for considerable time immediately prior to her death. PW3 allegedly delivered the bottles of liquor. Appellant was arrested within 12 hours from lodging of the FIR on the basis F of his description given in the FIR. The doctor who conducted the autopsy opined that the death was homicidal in nature and that the death was caused due to extensive head injuries with associated evidence of throttling. In appeal to this Court the question which arose for consideration is whether the circumstances .IH"ought on record by the prosecution G demonstrated that it was Appellant alone who committed the murder. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The circumstances brought on record by the prosecution 677 H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A clearly demonstrate that it was Appellant alone who committed the murder and in that view of the matter absence of motive would be immaterial. 1690-DI 2.1. PW-3 was a child witness. The Sessions Judge satisfied himself that he was capable of deposing before a Court of law. He categorically stated B that his father (PWI) used to treat the deceased as his sister. It may be true that PW3 had not been able to identify Appellant in Court because he was not having beard but he was identified when his photograph was shown to him. In his evidence, PW3 categorically stated that not only his father (PWl), the deceased and Appellant had been taking liquor but he also disclosed that they C were consuming whisky mixed with beer while taking meal. PW-3 had been cross-examined but nothing tangible has been brought on records to discredit his testimony. He has answered each and every question put to him in cross- examination. The evidence of PW-3 was also corroborated by the post mortem report which shows that there was 122 mg. and 117 mg. of Ehtyl Alcohol per 100 gms. in the two samples of viscera, i.e., stomach/ intestine and spleen/ D liver which according to the medical evidence proved excessive cor.sumption of liquor by the deceased. Appellant had procured three bottles of liquor and evidently saw to it that the deceased came under influence of alcohol. . (685-8, C; 685-G-HJ 2.2. According to PW-3, after PW-I left to have a nap, the deceased and E Appellant had taken three bottles of liquor which must have taken 2-3 hours time. Appellant, therefore, was in company with the deceased for a considerable time immediately prior to her death. He was seen by PWs 3 and 4 between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. The deceased was found dead at about 4.30 or 4.45 p.m. F (686-A-BJ 2.3. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are believed and there is no reason as to why they should not be, the deceased was last seen with Appellant. What would be its effect would vary from case to case. Whether the said evid1:nce shall be relied upon or not would also be suhject to other materials which may be brought on record by the parties. The Court may, G however, depending on the facts and circumstances of this case look for some corroboration. (686-8-CI Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT (2006) 4 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.