State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Govind Pakhare
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1991 .
( From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.90 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.A.No.763 of 1988 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.90 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.A.No.763 of 1988 )
Petitioner: State of Maharashtra
Respondent: Madhukar Govind Pakhare
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1991 .
( From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.90 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.A.No.763 of 1988 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.90 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.A.No.763 of 1988 )
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P.KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 16, 1998
Appearances:
Nikhil Sakhardande , and D.M. Nargolkar , Advocates for the appell-ant
A.M. Khanwilkar , Advocate for the Respondent
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code , 1860
Section 302 read with Evidence Act , 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Last seen evidence – Blood stained cloths and footwear from house of accused – But no mention of blood stains on cloth in Panchnama – No blood detected on chappals – Recovery of stone at instance of accused doubtful as recovered at a distance of 1 and 1/2 furlongs – Failure of prosecution to establish where incident took place – Held that the view of High Court in acquitting the accused was not reasonable . ( Para 3 , 4 )
Indian Penal Code , 1860
Section 302 read with Evidence Act , 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Last seen evidence – Blood stained cloths and footwear from house of accused – But no mention of blood stains on cloth in Panchnama – No blood detected on chappals – Recovery of stone at instance of accused doubtful as recovered at a distance of 1 and 1/2 furlongs – Failure of prosecution to establish where incident took place – Held that the view of High Court in acquitting the accused was not reasonable . ( Para 3 , 4 )
Held:
The High Court did not place any reliance upon the recovery of blood stained shirts from the house of the accused as in the panchnama under which they were seized it was not at all stated that there were blood stained on those shirts . On the ‘ chappals ‘ , which were detected . Therefore , no reliance was placed by the High Court on that circumstance also . The High Court doubted recovery of the stone with which the deceased was alleged to have been killed on the ground that the whole story was improbable particularly when it was found from a distance of 1 & 1/2 fur-longs . Moreover , the prosecution had failed to establish where the incident had taken place . We have gone through the evidence and we find that the view taken by the High Court is not unrea-sonable . The appeal is , therefore , dismissed . Bail bond of the respondent is cancelled . ( Para 3 & 4 )
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI , J.
1 . The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by the trial court but acquitted by the High Court . This is a case of circumstantial evidence . The circumstances which were relied upon by the prosecution were as under :
” 1 . Motive ;
2 . The accused and the deceased last seen in the company of each other ;
3 . Finding of blood-stained clothes and footwear in the house of accused under panchnama ;
4 . Finding of human blood on the pyjama seized from the person of the accused at the time of arrest of the accused ;
5 . Recovery of the stone at the instance of the accused and the same being blood-stained with human blood of ~ ‘ A ‘ Group ; and
6 . False explanation alleged to have been given by the ac-cused to the inmates of the house of the deceased-Dnyany on 14th April 1982 . “
2 . The trial court did not rely upon circumstances Nos. 2 and 3 but relying upon other circumstances , it convicted the respond-ent .
3 . The High Court did not place any reliance upon the recovery of blood stained shirts from the house of the accused as in the panchnama under which they were seized it was not at all stated that there were blood stained on those shirts . On the ‘ chappals ‘ , which were detected . Therefore , no reliance was placed by the High Court on that circumstance also . The High Court doubted recovery of the stone with which the deceased was alleged to have been killed on the ground that the whole story was improbable particularly when it was found from a distance of 1 & 1/2 fur-longs . Moreover , the prosecution had failed to establish where the incident had taken place .
4 . We have gone through the evidence and we find that the view taken by the High Court is not unreasonable . The appeal is , therefore , dismissed . Bail bond of the respondent is cancelled .
1 . The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by the trial court but acquitted by the High Court . This is a case of circumstantial evidence . The circumstances which were relied upon by the prosecution were as under :
” 1 . Motive ;
2 . The accused and the deceased last seen in the company of each other ;
3 . Finding of blood-stained clothes and footwear in the house of accused under panchnama ;
4 . Finding of human blood on the pyjama seized from the person of the accused at the time of arrest of the accused ;
5 . Recovery of the stone at the instance of the accused and the same being blood-stained with human blood of ~ ‘ A ‘ Group ; and
6 . False explanation alleged to have been given by the ac-cused to the inmates of the house of the deceased-Dnyany on 14th April 1982 . “
2 . The trial court did not rely upon circumstances Nos. 2 and 3 but relying upon other circumstances , it convicted the respond-ent .
3 . The High Court did not place any reliance upon the recovery of blood stained shirts from the house of the accused as in the panchnama under which they were seized it was not at all stated that there were blood stained on those shirts . On the ‘ chappals ‘ , which were detected . Therefore , no reliance was placed by the High Court on that circumstance also . The High Court doubted recovery of the stone with which the deceased was alleged to have been killed on the ground that the whole story was improbable particularly when it was found from a distance of 1 & 1/2 fur-longs . Moreover , the prosecution had failed to establish where the incident had taken place .
4 . We have gone through the evidence and we find that the view taken by the High Court is not unreasonable . The appeal is , therefore , dismissed . Bail bond of the respondent is cancelled .
