# BHASKARRAO & ORS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [2018] 4 S.C.R. 751
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-04-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2014
- **Bench:** N. V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhaskarrao-ors-v-state-of-maharashtra-32881
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 147, 148, 452 r/w s. 149, s.302/149 and s.506 - Prosecution
under - For murder of a person - by 16 accused - Trial Court
acquitted all the accused - High Court reversed the acquittal order
- On appeal, held: Evidence of witnesses were not consistent -
There were lot of improvement in the statement of witnesses - There
were contradictory statements as regards the number of accused
persons involved - All the witnesses were related - Material
independent witnesses were not examined - Prosecution failed to
prove motive - Panch witnesses as well as medical evidence did not
support the prosecution case - Thus, chain of events cannot be
said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution -
In view of the shortcomings and discrepancies in the prosecution
case, accused persons cannot be said to have formed unlawful
assembly with a view to kill the deceased - Guilt of accused not
proved beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal justified.
Criminal Law:
Motive - Evidentiary value - Held: In a case of circumstantial
evidence, motive has a role to play - But to dislodge prosecution's
case solely based on lack of motive would amount to giving credit
to this factor, where it is not due.
Appeal:
Appeal against acquittal - Interference with and
reappreciation of evidence by appellate Court - Scope of - Held:
Appellate court is expected to be very cautious in interfering with
the order of acquittal - Its interference is called for, only when
there are compelling reasons and substantial grounds.
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 751
 751
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence - Value of circumstantial evidence
rests in its accumulative effect - When several such evidences are
taken together, they may carry enough probative force to justify the
conviction, if such evidence forms an unbroken chain of events
resulting in only one hypothesis so canvassed.
Witness:
Related witness - Evidentiary value - Held: Interest of the
witness does affect his testimony - Under the influence of bias, a
man may not be in a position to judge correctly - Therefore, witness
having interest in the result, if allowed to be weighed in the same
scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would
be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the trial court, followed by a
full-fledged trial, comes to the conclusion and by cogent reasoning
acquits the accused. In such a case, the appellate Court is further
burdened with the task of reaffirming the innocence of the
accused. In such cases, the appellate Court is expected to be
very cautious and its interference with the order of acquittal is
called for only when there are compelling reasons and substantial
grounds. In other words, the High Court has full power to review
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, yet the
presumption of innocence of the accused being further reinforced
by his acquittal by the trial Court, the findings of that Court which
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their
evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling
reasons. [Para 23] [768-F-H; 769-A]
Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State, 1952 CriLJ 331 -
relied on.
2. The prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence
to prove the case. The value of circumstantial evidence rests in
its accumulative effect, that is to say, while a single piece of
circumstantial evidence may only slightly increase the likelihood
that the accused is guilty, several such evidences taken together
may carry enough probative force to justify the conviction, if such
circumstantial evidence forms an unbroken chain of events
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
resulting in only one hypothesis so canvassed. [Para 26]
[769-D-E]
3. The witnesses in the present case were inter-related,
and this court should be cautious in accepting their state

## Text

_Characters 0–39,876 of 65,217. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39876 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
 BHASKARRAO & ORS.
 v.
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
 (Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2014)
 APRIL 26, 2018.
 [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 147, 148, 452 r/w s. 149, s.302/149 and s.506 - Prosecution
under - For murder of a person - by 16 accused - Trial Court
acquitted all the accused - High Court reversed the acquittal order
- On appeal, held: Evidence of witnesses were not consistent -
There were lot of improvement in the statement of witnesses - There
were contradictory statements as regards the number of accused
persons involved - All the witnesses were related - Material
independent witnesses were not examined - Prosecution failed to
prove motive - Panch witnesses as well as medical evidence did not
support the prosecution case - Thus, chain of events cannot be
said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution -
In view of the shortcomings and discrepancies in the prosecution
case, accused persons cannot be said to have formed unlawful
assembly with a view to kill the deceased - Guilt of accused not
proved beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal justified.
Criminal Law:
Motive - Evidentiary value - Held: In a case of circumstantial
evidence, motive has a role to play - But to dislodge prosecution's
case solely based on lack of motive would amount to giving credit
to this factor, where it is not due.
Appeal:
Appeal against acquittal - Interference with and
reappreciation of evidence by appellate Court - Scope of - Held:
Appellate court is expected to be very cautious in interfering with
the order of acquittal - Its interference is called for, only when
there are compelling reasons and substantial grounds.
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 751
 751
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence - Value of circumstantial evidence
rests in its accumulative effect - When several such evidences are
taken together, they may carry enough probative force to justify the
conviction, if such evidence forms an unbroken chain of events
resulting in only one hypothesis so canvassed.
Witness:
Related witness - Evidentiary value - Held: Interest of the
witness does affect his testimony - Under the influence of bias, a
man may not be in a position to judge correctly - Therefore, witness
having interest in the result, if allowed to be weighed in the same
scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would
be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the trial court, followed by a
full-fledged trial, comes to the conclusion and by cogent reasoning
acquits the accused. In such a case, the appellate Court is further
burdened with the task of reaffirming the innocence of the
accused. In such cases, the appellate Court is expected to be
very cautious and its interference with the order of acquittal is
called for only when there are compelling reasons and substantial
grounds. In other words, the High Court has full power to review
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, yet the
presumption of innocence of the accused being further reinforced
by his acquittal by the trial Court, the findings of that Court which
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their
evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling
reasons. [Para 23] [768-F-H; 769-A]
Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State, 1952 CriLJ 331 -
relied on.
2. The prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence
to prove the case. The value of circumstantial evidence rests in
its accumulative effect, that is to say, while a single piece of
circumstantial evidence may only slightly increase the likelihood
that the accused is guilty, several such evidences taken together
may carry enough probative force to justify the conviction, if such
circumstantial evidence forms an unbroken chain of events
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
resulting in only one hypothesis so canvassed. [Para 26]
[769-D-E]
3. The witnesses in the present case were inter-related,
and this court should be cautious in accepting their statements.
Whoever has been a witness before the court of law, having a
strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in the same
scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would
be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound
rule which remain the bulwark of this system, and which
determines the value of evidence derived from such sources,
needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There
is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must
affect his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover, under the
influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly,
even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in
a position to provide evidence in an impartial manner, when it
involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even
though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify
others, and provide favorable color. These are most controlling
considerations in respect to the credibility of human testimony,
and should never to be overlooked in applying the rules of
evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under
the facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 27 and 31]
[769-F; 771-F-H; 772-A]
Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1954] 1 SCR
145; Masalti v. State of U.P., [1964] 8 SCR 133; Darya
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1964] 3 SCR 397;
Harbans Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2005 CriLJ
2199; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC
150 : [2007] 3 SCR 939 - relied on.
4. The prosecution has heavily relied on the statement of
PW1. The allegation particularly levelled by her was that the
accused carried the assault on the deceased at three places i.e.,
in front of the house of the deceased and near the house of PW3
and at the fields of 'Y'. However, in their depositions PWs 2, 4
and 5 did not mention about such assault on the deceased in front
of PW3. It appears from the material that there are no
eyewitnesses who had seen the accused attacking the deceased
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
in the fields of 'Y'. The statements of PW3 also appears to be not
consistent throughout. At one point of time, he deposed that the
deceased had died in front of his house. Altogether a different
statement was given to the investigating authorities and in the
Court. Similar is the case of PW4, who has made improvements
as regards to the assault on the deceased. Also there were varying
statements by the prosecution witnesses as regards PW4, on the
aspect of receiving the blow.Though she stated that she could
recognize the assailants by their face as she does not know their
names, yet test identification parade was not conducted which is
fatal to the case of prosecution. [Paras 32 and 33] [77-B, C-F]
5. PWs 2, 3 and 5 in their depositions gave contradictory
statements as to the involvement of number of accused persons
in the crime and also about noticing the accused who dragged
the deceased while assaulting him and dragging towards school
whereas PWs 1 and 4 were silent on this aspect. There were also
contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses as regards
the availability of light at the time of occurrence. [Para 33] [772-G]
6. PW1 has not witnessed the chopping of the hand, which
resulted in the ultimate death of her husband. It is prudent for
this Court to not believe in absence of cogent evidence concerning
the culpability of the accused, as her evidence is ridden with
apparent internal contradictions and inconsistencies. [Para 34]
[773-C-D]
7. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has a role to
play, but to dislodge prosecution's case solely based on lack of
motive would amount to giving credit to this factor, where it is
not due. The motive behind the accused assaulting the deceased
was said to be the quarrel during which the deceased had slapped
Accused No. 4 near a grocery shop in the village. Incidentally,
prosecution could also not prove the same by examining the
independent witness present at the grocery shop, though as many
as 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW10, Head
Constable of the Police Station who reduced the oral complaint
of PW1 into writing, categorically stated that PW1 had also not
mentioned about previous quarrel at the time of lodging of
complaint. There were, undoubtedly lot of improvements in the
statement of PW1 from the stage of complaint to her examination-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
in-chief. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 concerning the quarrel
is barred for being hearsay evidence. [Para 35] [773-F-G;
774-A-B]
Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. (1996) 9 SCC 40 : [1996]
2 Suppl. SCR 348; Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2007) 13 SCC 90 : [ 2007] 13 SCR 653; State of U.P.
v. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 : [2008]
11 SCR 1048; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West
Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91 : [2010] 8 SCR 1036 - relied
on.
Chandler v. DPP [1964] AC 763 - referred to.
General Principles of Criminal Law by Jerome Hall
88 (2d ed. 1960) - referred to.
8. Alternatively, the prosecution has alleged that motive
for the crime was that the accused party belongs to non-SC/ST
community whereas the victim was belonging to SC community.
The prosecution could not prove that the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste and accused were from non-Scheduled Caste
or Tribe and the prosecution has failed to prove any charge against
the accused including the charge under Section 3(i)(x) and 2(v)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. As against that charge, the High Court also
confirmed the view taken by the trial Court, which in other words
proved the prosecution version to be wrong. [Para 36] [774-C-D]
9. An accused is, of course, vicariously guilty of the offence
even if he is not directly indulged in the commission of offence
but committed by other accused, in case he is proved to be a
member of unlawful assembly sharing its common object. It is
evident that as per PW1-complainant, in the FIR the number of
persons mentioned by her, who have entered into their house
was four, while about 20 to 25 persons were assembled outside
the house and all of them assaulted the deceased. However, in
the examination-in-chief she deposed that there were in all 15
assailants who attacked her husband. Though she failed to name
the assailants in her deposition she made out a point that she
knew all the assailants. According to PW10, the author of
complaint, PW1 did not state about entry of accused Nos. 13 and
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
15 into her house. There was also no mention by her at the time
of lodging of FIR about carrying an axe by A-11, a sword by A-13,
a pipe by A-15 and sticks by other accused. Going by the material
on record, it can be said that there was no satisfactory explanation
on the part of PW1 for omissions in the FIR and improvements
before the Court. [Para 37] [774-F-H; 775-A]
10. PW11, a panch witness of seizure of bloodstained clothes
of the accused Nos. 1 to 7, did not support the prosecution case.
Similarly, the seizure is doubtful in the case of clothes pertaining
to accused No. 11 to which PW13 was witness. Going by the
material on record, the correctness of seizure of clothes of other
accused persons also do not inspire confidence.[Para 38]
[775-B-C]
11. PW6 who proved the recovery of weapons at the instance
of accused-appellants, could not point out his signature on the
respective disclosure statements and seizure panchnamas. He
also admitted that Ext.72 (memorandum) and Ext. 73 (seizure
panchnama) does not bear his signature. PW9 deposed that after
recovering sticks from the houses of accused Nos. 1 to 7, they
returned to the village panchayat office where almost all the papers
were scribed. Based on the Chemical Analysis report, those sticks
cannot be considered to be incriminating articles as there were
no blood stains on those sticks. In the same way, the sword and
axe allegedly recovered from Accused Nos. 13 and 11 respectively
also do not have bloodstains. In these circumstances, the
prosecution cannot be said to have proved the fact that the palm
of the deceased has been amputated by the accused with those
weapons. [Para 39] [775-D-F]
12. In the opinion of the doctor-PW7, who conducted
postmortem on the body of the deceased, the cause of the death
was due to heavy loss of blood owing to the amputation of his
hand. However, his vital organs were found to be normal and
there was no injury to the vital organs. PW7 has specifically
mentioned that there was no laceration or contusion sustained
by the deceased and opined that had there been timely medical
treatment, the deceased would have survived. At the same time
she made it clear that in case a person is beaten up with sticks
and iron pipe, as alleged by the prosecution in the present case,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
757
contusions and lacerations are possible. In her cross-examination,
the Doctor also revealed that because of amputation of hand and
leg or both, a person may not die. Thus, in totality, the medical
evidence is not corroborating with the prosecution's case. [Para
40] [775-G-H; 776-A-B]
13. Many persons, especially neighbours of the deceased,
who witnessed the important circumstances and who could be
vital independent witnesses have not been examined by the
prosecution. There is no convincing explanation forthcoming from
the prosecution side. [Para 41] [776-F]
14. In the midst of several contradictory statements among
the prosecution witnesses, there is no proper explanation on
record for PW1 and police searching for the deceased at the wells
and nullahs of the village, instead of searching around the school,
as per the prosecution story PWs 2, 3 and 5 were fully aware that
the deceased was dragged towards school. Moreover, looking at
the ambiguous narration of sequences described by the witnesses,
the chain of events in the case cannot be said to have been
properly brought on record by the prosecution. [Para 42] [777B-C]
15. It is always the duty of the Court to separate chaff from
the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of
Statements. It is but natural for human beings to state variant
statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat
the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material
and the Court has to be mindful of such statements. [Para 42]
[777-C-D]
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 -
relied on.
16. High Court has misconstrued certain aspects of the case.
According to PW2 the incident occurred at about 9 p.m. In the
FIR also the time was mentioned as 9 p.m. But the High Court in
its judgment observed that the incident took place at about 7.30
p.m. Thus, it is clear from the record that the alleged incident
has occurred at 9 p.m. and not at 7.30 p.m. as assumed by the
High Court, and there were also no eyewitnesses to the alleged
amputation of the hand of deceased and causing his death. [Para
43] [777-E-F, G]
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
17. In view of the shortcomings and discrepancies in the
prosecution case coupled with the improvements and
contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, it
cannot be said that the accused persons had really formed into
an unlawful assembly and carried out an assault on the deceased
that too with a view to kill him, so as to attract the provisions of
criminal law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
abundantly clear that the guilt of the accused persons was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court had dealt with
the case in a fool-proof manner by drawing out 11 important
circumstances and delivered a well reasoned judgment thereby
acquitting the accused, with which the High Court ought not to
have interfered. There were no compelling reasons and
substantial grounds for the High Court to interfere with the order
of acquittal passed by the trial Court. [Para 45] [778-B-D]
Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 10
SCC 220 : [2016] 8 SCR 394; L.L. Kale v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 295; Joginder Singh
& Anr. v. State of Haryana (2010) 15 SCC 407;
Nankaunoo v. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 317 : [2016]
4 SCR 627; Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab,
1987 CriLJ 974; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat, 1996 CriLJ 2867 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 8 SCR 394
referred to
Para 11
(2000) 1 SCC 295
referred to
Para 11
(2010) 15 SCC 407
referred to
Para 11
[2016] 4 SCR 627
referred to
Para 11
1987 CriLJ 974
referred to
Para 14
1996 CriLJ 2867
referred to
Para 15
1952 CriLJ 331
relied on
Para 23
[1954] 1 SCR 145
relied on
Para 27
[1964] 8 SCR 133
relied on
Para 28
[1964] 3 SCR 397
relied on
Para 29
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
759
2005 CriLJ 2199
relied on
Para 29
[2007] 3 SCR 939
relied on
Para 30
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 348
relied on
Para 35
[1964] AC 763
referred to
Para 35
[2007] 13 SCR 653
relied on
Para 35
[2008] 11 SCR 1048
relied on
Para 35
[2010] 8 SCR 1036
relied on
Para 35
AIR 1959 SC 1012
relied on
Para 42
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
408 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 290
of 1998.
WITH
Crl. A. Nos. 520, 1328, 1228, 1223, 1229, 1330 & 1578 of 2014.
V. V. S. Rao, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Varun Mathur,
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Subodh K.
Pathan, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the common
judgment and order, dated 21st December, 2013, passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal
No. 290 of 1998 whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.
40 of 1995 and convicted all the accused/appellants herein except accused
no. 6 (since dead) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,
452 read with Section 149, Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section
506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The prosecution story in short is that, on 19th June, 1995 at
about 7 pm, in the village Jalka Shahapur an altercation had taken place
between two villagers, namely Shamrao (deceased) and Balya (Accused
No. 4) on the road near a grocery shop over repayment of Rs.50/-. It
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
was alleged that Shamrao (deceased) had slapped Balya (Accused No.
4) during the scuffle. After sometime, all the sixteen accused persons
armed with weapons, while entering the house of Shamrao hurling abuses,
dragged him out of the house, assaulted on his hands and legs. They are
alleged to have continuously assaulted Shamrao while simultaneously
dragging him to a field where they finally cut his right palm and left the
place. During the course of assault by the accused, Chanda (PW1) [wife
of Shamrao] followed them pleading not to hurt her husband and out of
fear she took shelter in some cattle shed. Later on she went to the house
of one Harshawardhan Bhalekar and informed him about the incident.
Then Harshawardhan Bhalekar along with PW1 proceeded to Amravati
and informed about the occurrence to the family members of Shamrao.
After that they went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Amravati
where they were advised to lodge a complaint at Nandgaon Peth police
station. Accordingly, a complaint (Ext. 55) was lodged on 20th June,
1995 being crime case No. 72 of 1995. It may be relevant to reduce a
part of the FIR as underName and addresses
of accused, if any
: 1. Gajanan Chincholkar
 2. Balya Bhagat
 3. Pramod Khedkar
 4. Raju Mohol
+20 to 25 persons
Names and addresses
of suspects
:
Nature of offence with
penal section. Give
short descriptions of
stolen property with
its value if any.
The incident is that on the above
dt. Time and place, when the
husband of the complainant was
in the home, when he went to the
house of Balya Bhagat out of the
accused
persons
herein
for
demanding the money of fishes,
the accused persons came to the
house of the husband of the
accused and the accused persons
have beaten and pulled from the
house and on account of the said
occurrence,
the
offence
is
registered
and
taken
for
investigation.
:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
761
3. Dattatray Kulkarni, A.P.I. (PW17) took up the investigation
and carried a search for missing Shamrao in the Jalka Shahapur village
and ultimately on 21st June, 1995 on the information of one Ananda
Bhurbhure, PW1 and PW17 found the dead body of Shamrao, in the
fields of one Yeshwant Thawale, without his right palm which they traced
at some distance. After conducting the panchanama of scene of
occurrence, inquest report was drawn, clothes of the deceased were
seized, statements of some witnesses were recorded and the dead body
was sent to the Civil Surgeon at Amravati for postmortem. All the accused,
except accused no. 16 who was stated to be absconding, were arrested
and at their instance, alleged weapons used for the crime were recovered,
disclosure statements recorded, seizure panchanama recorded and the
accused were got medically examined. After completion of investigation,
charges were framed against accused nos. 1 to 15 to which the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In its effort to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined as many as 19 witnesses. Learned trial Judge after conducting
a full fledged trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore,
all the accused, against whom trial was conducted (accused nos. 1 to
15), were acquitted of the offences they were charged with. Accused
No. 16, who was absconding, came to be arrested at the end of trial.
Hence, the trial court directed separate trial against him.
5. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the trial court,
the State of Maharashtra went in appeal before the High Court. During
the pendency of the appeal, before the High Court, Accused No. 6 expired.
The High Court found fault with the acquittal order passed by the trial
court and by its judgment which is impugned herein, convicted all the
accused before it except accused No. 6, for the offence punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 452 read with Section 149, Section 302 read
with Section 149 and Section 506, IPC. They were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148 and 452, IPC. Whereas for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC they were sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in
default, to further suffer imprisonment for one year. They were also
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay
a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to further suffer a period of one
above
n the
nt was
to the
of the
for
fishes,
to the
f the
ersons
m the
e said
e
is
for
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
month imprisonment for the offence under Section 506, IPC. However,
all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
6. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court in reversing
the order of acquittal, the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 14 are before us
in these appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court. It appears
that Accused No. 15, Gajanan Pandurang Chincholkar, has not preferred
an appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
7. It may be beneficial to note that the accused Nos. 1 (Motiram)
and 3 (Ravindra) have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2014, Accused
Nos. 2 (Bhaskarrao), 9 (Maroti Bhaskarrao Bhagat) and 10 (Bhagwat
Bhaurao Bhagat) have filed Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2014, Accused
Nos. 4 (Balya) and 5 (Vishnu Bharao Bhagat) have filed Criminal Appeal
No. 1578 of 2014, Accused No. 7 (Maroti Mahadeorao Kosare) has
filed Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of 2014, Accused No. 8 (Laxman Bhaurao
Bhagat) has filed Criminal Appeal 1328 of 2014, Accused No. 11
(Prabhakar Narsaji Bhagat) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2014,
Accused No. 12 (Babarao Laxmanrao Adhao) has filed Criminal Appeal
No. 1228 of 2014 and Accused Nos. 13 (Dilip Uttamrao Mankur) and
14 (Pramod Devidas Khedkar) have filed Criminal Appeal No. 520 of
2014.
8. On behalf of Accused No. 8, the arguments were advanced by
Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, learned
counsel has argued on behalf of Accused Nos. 2, 7, 9 and 10 to 14, while
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel made submissions in
respect of Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Having heard the arguments
advanced by the respective counsel, as the order impugned is one and
the same, we proceed to deal with all these appeals by a common
judgment.
9. It is the case of the appellants-accused that the entire
prosecution story has been concocted to falsely implicate the innocent
appellants and is not based on the true facts and circumstances. That
there were several lapses in the prosecution theory. That the dead body
of the deceased was found in a field which is about two kms away from
the house of the deceased, and there is no eyewitness to the factum of
accused committing the murder of deceased. His amputated palm was
found at some distance to his dead body, but there was no evidence on
record as to who cut the palm of the deceased. There were also no
bloodstains on any weapon alleged to have been recovered by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
investigating authorities at the instance of accused. All the prosecution
witnesses are inter-related and there was no independent witness to
support the prosecution case. The trial Court has rightly discarded the
evidence of interested witnesses.
10. It is also argued that the prosecution has improvised the
circumstances from the stage of lodging FIR to the conclusion of trial.
In the FIR, there was no mention about the alleged quarrel that took
place between the deceased and Accused No. 4 over a matter of Rs.50/
- near a grocery shop. PW1 (wife of the deceased) introduced the story
later on. The owner of the grocery shop was not examined as a witness
whose evidence would be crucial to prove that a quarrel has taken place
which is the whole basis or provocation for the incident. It was also
alleged that there were two other witnesses namely Charandas and Anant,
but they too were not examined by the prosecution. In the FIR, the
names of accused were specified as only four persons, but 16 persons
have been dragged into the case as accused. The statements of witnesses
varied as to the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence and
their depositions are quite contradictory to the prosecution case. There
was also no test identification parade conducted and all the accused
persons are not familiar to the witnesses. The evidence of prosecution
witnesses is unbelievable inasmuch as the allegation was that the
deceased was dragged on the ground for about 2 kms from his house to
the place where his dead body was found, even then there were no
injury marks on the body of the deceased.
11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the High
Court failed to take into consideration the crucial facts that no test
identification parade was conducted, no motive was established, no injuries
on vital parts of the deceased were noted, and above all medical evidence
did not corroborate with the alleged ocular evidence. The High Court
has also failed to take note of the fact that the trial Court has not committed
any legal error in appreciating the ocular and medical evidence to reach
at the conclusion that the accused are innocent. The law is well settled
by this Court with regard to fresh appreciation of evidence in an appeal
against acquittal that even if on the basis of evidence, there is a possibility
of taking a different view than that of the trial Court, the appellate Court
should refrain from disturbing the findings and conclusion recorded by
the lower court. In view of the settled law, the High Court ought not
have interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. But
by setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the High
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
Court has committed a gross illegality by convicted the appellantsaccused thereby causing miscarriage of justice which invites interference
of this Court. In support of their arguments learned counsel appearing
for the accused-appellants relied on the judgments of this Court in
Mahavir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10 SCC 220,
L.L. Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 295,
Joginder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 15 SCC 407 and
Nankaunoo Vs. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 317.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the StateMr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that the learned trial Judge disbelieved the
evidence of prosecution witnesses for no valid and reasonable cause.
The minor discrepancies in the depositions have been given undue
importance to pass the acquittal order against the accused, who in a
brutal manner dragged the deceased to the fields and assaulted him with
sticks, axe and sword. PW1-Chanda, wife of the deceased, tried her
best to save her husband praying at the accused to show mercy, but all
the accused in pursuance of their common object, attacked the deceased
indiscriminately leading to his death. The High Court has correctly
assessed the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no
legal error in the impugned order seeking indulgence of this Court.
13. We have given our consideration to the material placed before
us and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
14. As the trial court and High Court, having appreciated the
evidence on record, has come to diametrically opposite conclusions,
mandating herein to observe certain witness statements which may have
an important bearing in this case. In the processes of appreciating the
evidence at the appellate stage, we need to keep in mind the views of
this court as expressed in Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987
CriLJ 974 -
"The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons
given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony
of PW2 and PW6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What
the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of
the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on
the ground that as a result of such re-appreciation, the High Court
was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded
by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a
re-appreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which
is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal
passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and
sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction
of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order
of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference
is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach
made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence
in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the
conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could
not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably
and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised
as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of
the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a
view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally
interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that
the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the
evidence is erroneous."
15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1996 CriLJ
2867, this Court observed:
"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a
view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately
arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence
cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an
order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire
approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable.
While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is
first required to seek an answer to the question whether the
findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous
or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the
above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be
disturbed."
16. Keeping the aforesaid observations in mind, we may note
some statements of the witnesses, who have deposed before the trial
court concerning the incident. PW-1 [wife of the deceased], has deposed
that she came to know about the scuffle, from her husband, which took
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
place between her deceased husband and accused no. 4 prior to the
occurrence of the incident. She further stated that while she was cooking
the dinner for her husband, accused no. 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and absconding
accused (Raju) entered her house. The accused dragged her husband
outside onto the courtyard. She states that she saw accused no. 11 was
armed with an axe, accused no. 13 was armed with a sword and accused
no. 16 was holding an iron pipe. She further states that rest of the accused
were armed with sticks and in total there were 15 assailants. Her husband
was dragged to the courtyard of Vinayak Bhalekar, whose house is said
to be after three to four houses. At that spot, they again gave some
beating to the deceased. PW-1 states that she was continuously
requesting the assailants to spare the life of her husband. At this instant,
accused no. 11 is said to have threatened PW-1 so that she may not
witness the incident. Accordingly, she ran to the cattle shed of one Sudha
Bhalekar, who was attacked by accused no. 14 in the meantime, and
remained hidden for about two hours out of fear. Thereafter, PW-1 went
to the house of Harshwardhan Balekar, who first accompanied her to
the district head-quarters at Amravati, wherein she informed the family
of the deceased (parents-in-law and the brother-in-law) and thereafter
went to the Amravati police station. As they were advised to register the
case in Nandgaon Police Station, they came back to Nandgaon police
station to register the complaint.
17. During the cross-examination she avers that PW-3, 4 and 5
were closely related to her and the accused were also related inter se.
Concerning the relationship between the accused no. 4 and the deceased,
she states that the relationship between them were cordial. Lastly, she
could not assign any reason as to why the earlier scuffle between her
deceased husband and accused no. 4 was not written in the FIR registered
by her.
18. PW-2 avers that on the day of the incident, while he was
watching television from inside the house, he heard some commotion
taking place outside his house. When he went outside the house, he saw
that the accused were beating the deceased with weapons such as axe,
pipe, swords and stick. he states that he saw accused no. 11 armed with
an axe, accused no. 4 armed with a bamboo stick, accused no. 13 armed
with a sword and accused no. 16 was holding an iron pipe. As he was
afraid, he did not go behind the assailants. During the cross examination,
he avers that there might have been more than twenty persons.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
19. PW-3, states that he saw the accused giving severe beating to
the deceased with sticks, swords, iron pipes and axe. He states that he
saw accused no. 16, 15 and 11 dragging the deceased towards the school
and he did not follow the accused out of the fear and on the following
day, deceased body was found in the field of one Yeshwant Sawai. During
the cross examination, he states that the deceased died in front of his
house, due to severe beating given by the accused. Moreover, he admits
that the deceased is his relative.
20. It may be noted that PW-4 and 5 have deposed to the same
effect, concerning the incident. They have further admitted that they
were related to the deceased. At this point it may be relevant to notice
the witness statement of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem
[PW-7]. Concerning the stick blows on the body of the deceased, she
notes as under-
 '...Contusions and lacerations are possible in case a person
is beaten by sticks or from pipe. I did not find any lacerated wound
or contusion sustained by the deceased and as such I did not
mention such injury in P.M. Note....'
Concerning the cause of death, PW-7 states as under-
'The injury sternum as described in Column No. 20 is possible in
case a person fall down on hard surface. Because of loss of blood
due to injury the deceased went into the shock and which resulted
in his death. The deceased died due to loss of blood. Because of
loss of blood the heart chambers were found empty and other
organs were found pale. Vital organs were intact. I did not
find any injury to any vital part of the body. Loss of blood is
gradually loss of blood and it may take some time. In case
of timely medical treatment person may survive. Hands and
legs are non-vital part of the body. Because of the amputation of
hand and because of amputation of leg or both person may not
die. It is not always possible that a person may die because of
incised wounds No. 1, 2 & 5 as described in Coloum No. 17'
[sic.]
[emphasis supplied]
21. PW-10 was stationed as the head constable of Nandgaon
police station at the relevant time when PW-1 registered the complaint.
 BHASKARRAO & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
It may be beneficial for the discussion to observe the cross examination
of the aforesaid witness, as under-
 ...3. The complainant PW1-Chanda did not state in her
complaint the fact that Accused No.4 addressed abuses to her
husband when her husband demanded money to Accused No.4.
The PW1-Chanda did not state in her complaint the fact that
Accused No.13 and Accused No.15 arrived and they entered into
her house. PW1-Chanda did not state in her complaint the fact
that she requested the assailants not to beat her husband. The
PW1-Chanda did not state in her report Exh. 55 the fact that
Accused No.11 was armed with an axe, PW1-Chanda did not
state in her report Exh. 55 the fact that the Accused No.13 was
holding sword. The PW1-Chanda did not state in her report Exh.55
the fact that Accused No. 15 was holding a pipe. The PW1-Chanda
did not state in her report Exh.55 the fact that the rest of the
Assailants-Accused were holding sticks in their hands. PW1Chanda did not state in her complaint Exh.55 the fact that the
Accused-Assailants had beaten to her husband shamrao in the
courtyard....
From the aforesaid witness, it is clear that the FIR did not consist of all
those facts which were subsequently deposed by PW-1 and others before
the court.
22.