Supreme Court of India
RAM MARUTHI PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 501
- Decided
- 15 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The convictions of both A‑12 and A‑14 are set aside as the evidence, including the prosecution’s concession and the contradictory eyewitness testimony, is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the convictions of two accused in a murder case under sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had convicted A‑12 despite a prosecution concession that there was no evidence against accused Nos.2‑15, and the High Court upheld the conviction of A‑14 based on PW9’s identification after a three‑month delay. The Court found the prosecution’s concession indicated insufficient evidence, and PW9’s testimony was riddled with contradictions, rendering the identification unreliable. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the convictions were unsustainable. The Court set aside both convictions and ordered the appellants’ immediate release.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction of A‑12 is sustainable in view of the prosecution’s concession that no offence could be proved against accused Nos.2‑15.
- Whether the conviction of A‑14 is sustainable based on the identification parade testimony of PW9, which was given after a three‑month delay and contains contradictions.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302
Subjects
MurderSection 302 IPCSection 149 IPCIdentification paradeEyewitness testimonyContradictory evidenceAcquittalConviction set asideCriminal appeal
Judgment
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 956 '
A RAM MARUTHI PAWAR
II.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2007)
APRIL 15, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
s.3021149 - Murder - lnspite of concession made on
behalf of State in favour of accused persons, trial court
convicting one of the accused - High Court though rejecting
the evidence of identification, allowing State's appeal against
r
acquittal of another - HELD: Evidence being full of
D
contradictions conviction of both the accused set aside.
The appellant and 14 others were prosecuted for
commission of offences punishable uls 302 rlw s.149 IPC.
The trial court convicted A-12 and acquitted all others.
E The High Court allowed the appeal of State against
acquittal of A-14 and dismissed the appeal of A-12.
Aggrieved, A-12 and A-14 filed the appeal.
Allowing the appeals, the Court ,~ -
F HELD: 1.1. It was conceded on behalf of the State
before the trial court that it was not possible to say that
any offence has been committed by accused Nos.2 to 15
and they can be immediately set at liberty. The trial though
recorded the concession, but convicted A12. [Para 2 and
G :>] [958-C-D, H]
-f ~
1.2. The High Court's judgment is equally baffling. It
noted that the identification parade took place after three
months when PW-9 identified accused Nos.12 and 14.
H 956
.._
- ) RAM MARUTHI PAWAR v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
957
The High Court after indicating some reasons held that._ A
the evidence regarding the parade was to be rejected.
The High Court also noted the fact that before the police,
PW9 did not say anything about his being an eyewitness.
But High Court went on to hold that just because he has
given different versions at different point of time, his B
evidence cannot be discarded and it cannot be said that
he is not an eye-witness. The conclusions of the High
Court are certainly not defensible. Evidence of PW-9 is
full of contradictions. The High Court was, therefore, not
justified in convicting the appellants. The conviction as c
recorded by the trial court and the High Court, so far as
A-12 is concerned and the conviction as recorded by the
- ~
High Court so far as A-14 is concerned are set aside.
[Para 4 and 6] [959-D-E; G-H; 960-A-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal D
No. 1609 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.06.2007 of the High
Court of Bombay in Crl. Appeal No. 740/1986.
E
Shriniwas R. Khalap, Wajih Shafiq and Anip Sachthey for
the Appellant.
Gaurav Agrawal and Ravindra Keshavrao for the
-) Respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These two appeals are inter-
linked and are directed against a common judgment of the
Bombay High Court. Of the two appeals before the High Court,
one was filed by Nathu Keru Bhatre (hereinafter described as G
.1 ¥ 'A-12'). The other appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra
questioning the acquittal of one Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan
(hereinafter referred to as ·A 1') and the appellant Ram Maruti
Pawar (hereinafter described as 'A14). In all, 15 accused
H
958 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.
A persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The trial court convicted A12
while directing acquittal of other accused persons. The State's
appeal before the High Court related to accused nos. 1 and •
B 14. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State qua ~
Ram Maruthi Pawar A14 while upholding the acquittal so far
as Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan (A1) is concerned.
2. Though learned counsel for the appellant urged many
points, we do not feel it necessary to go into them in detail.
c There are some disturbing features which have been noticed.
It appears that during the course of trial, learned prosecutor
appearing for the State conceded before the trial court that it
was not possible to say that any offence has been committed
by accused Nos.2 to 15 and they can be immediately set at
D liberty. The trial recorded the concession in the following words: 1
-
"At the very outset of this arguments, Shri Pandey
submitted that after critical examination of the prosecution
evidence, it is not possible to say that any offence has
E been committed by accused Nos.2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,
10,11,12,13,14 and 15 and they can be immediately set
at liberty. All that time prosecution could alleged, against
these accused is that they had produced sticks from their
houses after execution of certain Panchanamas filed at
). ~
F Exhs. 60 to 64 but more production of a stick from the
house is not enough to implicate them in the murders that
had taken place unless any further corroboration was there
to indicate that they had really taken part in the murderous
assault. As there is no evidence whatsoever to show that
these persons had belabored the deceased, it was but
G
natural for Shri Pandey to submit that he has no comment
to make against them." 'f. l.
3. ~heless the trial court convicted A12 which was
challenged fore the High Court. It is also interesting to note
H that before recording the concession of learned counsel for the
RAM MARUTHI PAWAR v. STATE OF 959
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
prosecution, the High Court noted that the evidence of Narayan A
Pandy Ghungre (PW9) as regards the particular part played by
accused Nos.2 and 14 are relevant. It has been noted as
follows:
• "23. xxx xxx xxx
B
But PW9 Narayan says that he was able to identify 2/3
persons that were rushing at him with some instruments
in their hands and accordingly he says that accused Nos.12
and 14 were these persons who were chasing them.
c
24. It is on the basis of the statement of PW9 Narayan that
the particular part played by accused Nos.12 and 14 in the
commission of the crime of murder has been sought to be
established by the prosecution, while maintaining that so
far as the other accused are concerned, there is no 0
evidence whatsoever to connect them with the crime."
4. The High Court's judgment is equally baffling. The High
Court noted that the identification parade took place after three
months when PW9 identified accused Nos.12 and 14. The High
Court in this context noted as follows: E
"PW9 further states that the woman then directed her
attention to the witness and told the villagers that Narayan
and Sitaram were also thieves. Then 2/3 villagers rushed
• A at Narayan, asked Sitaram to come down from the three F
immediately. Accordingly, Sitaram came down and 2/3
Arsons who had rushed on them were identified as
accused Nos.12 and 14. He stated that in the parade that
took place after three months, he identified the accused
Nos.12 and 14." G
5. But after indicating some reasons, the High Court noted
J ¥ that the evidence regarding the parade is to be rejected. The
~··
High Court also noted the fact that before the police PW9 did
not say anything about his being an oeyewitness. But High
Court went on to hold that just because he has given different H
~
I
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
,_
A versions at different point of time, his evidence cannot be
discarded and it cannot be said that he is not an eye-witness.
The conclusions of the High Court are certainly not defensible.
It is to be noted that PW9 Narayan's evidence is full of
contradictions.
B
6. That being so, the High Court was not justified, apart
from other important aspects highlighted above, in convicting
the appellants. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
The conviction as recorded by the trial court and the High Court,
so far as Nathu Keru is concerned and the conviction as
C recorded by the High Court so far as Ram Maruthi Pawar is
concerned, are set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted
of the charges. They are to be set at liberty and released
forthwith from custody unless required to be in custody in any
other case.
D
RP. Appeals allowed.
,
t
.( -
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search