Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari* and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., heard two criminal appeals and an interim application filed by the Appellants, convicted under Sections 302 and 307, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The offences were committed due to a criminal group rivalry between the appellants and the prosecution. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses could not establish proof beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted them of the same. Further, even though the conviction of the appellants was upheld for the charges under Section 307 of IPC, the Court noticed that the appellants had already served sentenced in that offence’s respect, and therefore directed their release from jail.
Background
Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli (“Trial Court”), under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for committing a murder and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC for an attempt to commit murder and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The Trial Court had directed concurrent running of both the substantive sentences.
The case involves a history of rivalry between two criminal gangs, that led to one group leader having murdered the other, a year prior to the instant crime. The deceased in the instant case and the victim of attempt to murder (“PW-3”) were associates of the murdering group leader.
The prosecution in the instant case had relied on four eyewitnesses, the Manager of the hotel where the crime occurred (“PW-1”), a friend of the deceased (“PW-2”), injured witness (“PW-3”), and an independent witness, who was present in the hotel at the time of alleged assault by accused on the deceased (“PW-12”).
Court’s analysis and judgment The Court noted that PW-1 had failed to identify the appellants as the assailants of deceased. Therefore, the identity of the appellants was not established beyond reasonable doubt through this witness. PW-2 was declared hostile by the prosecution, but he admitted that there were strained relations between the two groups since their leader murdered the other group’s leader. Further, PW-3 had admitted that their leader was his special friend and that PW-3 used to listen to him. He further admitted that he used to do whatever their leader used to ask of him and that their leader had many enemies. The Court however opined that PW-3 was not telling the entire truth. In respect of Appellant 4 in the instant case, PW-3 only made a passing reference to his first name and no other overt act was attributed to him. PW-3 had also admitted that he only knew Appellants 1, 2, and 3. However, the Court found that PW-3’s close association with his group gave him all the reasons to implicate the accused persons as they were members of the rival group.
In respect of Appellant 4, PW-12 also had not specifically mentioned any overt act, except for a passing reference, as noted by the Court, and it found PW-12 to be a chance-witness.
The Court referred to Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 (‘Vadivelu Thevar Case’), wherein the Supreme Court had enumerated three categories of witnesses-wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Therefore, applying Vadivelu Thevar Case (supra), the instant Court found that PW-3 was neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, as he had all the reasons to implead the appellants. PW-12 was found to be unreliable and a chance witness, as he did not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court.
The Court noted that nobody had witnessed the actual assault on the deceased by the appellants, and that there was no evidence that Appellant 4 participated in the commission of either of the crimes, under Sections 302 or 307 of IPC. Further, the Court noted that PW-2 had not even mentioned the presence of Appellant 4 at the site of crime.
Therefore, in the light of the above, the Court partly allowed both the appeals and held the following-
-
Appellants 1, 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charge under Section 302 of IPC due to benefit of doubt afforded to them.
-
The conviction of Appellants 1, 2 and 3 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC was confirmed and directed to undergo sentence as prescribed by the Trial Court.
-
Appellants 1, 2 and 3 be released from jail as having already undergone sentence under Section 307 of IPC.
-
Appellant 4 be acquitted of all charges due to benefit of doubt afforded to him.
[Sanjay Prakash Mane v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1624, decided on 11-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice A. S. Gadkari
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Anush Shetty, Kedar J Patil
For the Respondent: AA Takalkar, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
