# STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA

- **Citation:** [2015] 11 S.C.R. 357
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-09-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.1957 OF 2008
- **Bench:** Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Uday Umesh Lalit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-maharashtra-v-ramlal-devappa-30279
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

A
. B
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 326, C
427, 435, 436, 452 rlw s. 149- Prosecution under- Of 34
accused-Assault by mob, causing death of one person and
injuries to others (eye-witnesses)- During trial 9 of the eyewitnesses including injured-eyewitnesses turned hostile as
regards the identity of the accused persons - The sole eyeD
witness PW-12 supported the prosecution case - Trial court
convicted the 8 respondents-accused, while acquitting the
rest of the accused - High Court acquitted the respondentsaccused disbelieving the testimony of PW-12 - On appeal,
held: The testimony of PW-12 was natural and devoid of any E
exaggeration and the same is corroborated by the recovery
of weapons of offence at the instance of the accused, medical
evidence and other material on record -
Therefore, her
evidence is reliable and trustworthy- Trial court rightly relied
on the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW12)- In view of F
the testimony of PW12, out of the 8 accused found guilty by
the trial court, conviction of 6 of them is confirmed, holding
that prosecution case against them stood completely proved
- The other 2 respondents-accused are acquitted giving them
benefit of doubt.
G
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 149 -
Common object -
Applicability of- In a case of mob violence - Held: Existence
357
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A of common object can be ascertained from the attending facts
and circumstances - Where assault is opened by a mob of
fairly large number of people and where it is difficult to
ascertain as to whether those who had not committed the overt
act were guided by the common object, in such situation such
B ·persons who are not attributed of having done any specific
overt act, were not members of unlawful assembly.
Evidence -
Sole witness -
Reliance on -
Held:
Conviction can be founded on the testimony of a sole witness
C - However, testimony of such witness must be confidence
inspiring and beyond suspicion and has to be corroborated
by other evidence - Witness.
Evidence - Sole witness - Reliance on - In a case of
o mob violence - Held: The rule of prudence that in a case of
mob violence there should be more than one eye-witness
. does not mean that in such case sole-witness cannot be relied
on, if it is otherwise reliable.
E
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 27 - Recovery of weapons at
the instance of the accused - Evidentiary value of - If not
supported by testimony of independent panchas - Held: The
recoveries need not always be proved through the deposition
of the panchas and' can be supported through the testimony
F of the investigating officer.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The case of the prosecution is based on
the testimony of PW12, the wife of the deceased. The
G substantive evidence on record is only through this
witness. The law on the point is well settled that a
conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a
sole witness. However, the testimony of a sole witness
H must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
359
RATHOD
leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. Where there A
is a sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with
an amount of caution and after testing it on the
touchstone of other material on record. The statement
of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not
leave any doubt in ihe mind of the Court and has to be B
corroborated by other evidence produced by the
prosecution. [Para 14] [377-0-G]
State of Haryana v. lnder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537;
Joseph v. State of Kera/a 2003 (2) SCC 465; Ram
C
Naresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 11 SCC
257 - referred to
1.2 The deposition of PW12 shows that while the
decJ!ased was being pursued and assaulted, her o
attention was focussed in so far as her husband was
concerned, which is quite natural. Except referring to the
initial blow which was given to one of the witnesses, her
testimony concentrates only upon .those who were
primarily responsible for having

## Text

_Characters 0–39,825 of 58,285. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39825 for what follows._

[2015] 11 S.C.R. 357
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
V:
RAM LAL DEVAPPA RATH OD AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No.1957 OF 2008)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND UDAY
UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
A
. B
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 326, C
427, 435, 436, 452 rlw s. 149- Prosecution under- Of 34
accused-Assault by mob, causing death of one person and
injuries to others (eye-witnesses)- During trial 9 of the eyewitnesses including injured-eyewitnesses turned hostile as
regards the identity of the accused persons - The sole eyeD
witness PW-12 supported the prosecution case - Trial court
convicted the 8 respondents-accused, while acquitting the
rest of the accused - High Court acquitted the respondentsaccused disbelieving the testimony of PW-12 - On appeal,
held: The testimony of PW-12 was natural and devoid of any E
exaggeration and the same is corroborated by the recovery
of weapons of offence at the instance of the accused, medical
evidence and other material on record -
Therefore, her
evidence is reliable and trustworthy- Trial court rightly relied
on the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW12)- In view of F
the testimony of PW12, out of the 8 accused found guilty by
the trial court, conviction of 6 of them is confirmed, holding
that prosecution case against them stood completely proved
- The other 2 respondents-accused are acquitted giving them
benefit of doubt.
G
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 149 -
Common object -
Applicability of- In a case of mob violence - Held: Existence
357
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A of common object can be ascertained from the attending facts
and circumstances - Where assault is opened by a mob of
fairly large number of people and where it is difficult to
ascertain as to whether those who had not committed the overt
act were guided by the common object, in such situation such
B ·persons who are not attributed of having done any specific
overt act, were not members of unlawful assembly.
Evidence -
Sole witness -
Reliance on -
Held:
Conviction can be founded on the testimony of a sole witness
C - However, testimony of such witness must be confidence
inspiring and beyond suspicion and has to be corroborated
by other evidence - Witness.
Evidence - Sole witness - Reliance on - In a case of
o mob violence - Held: The rule of prudence that in a case of
mob violence there should be more than one eye-witness
. does not mean that in such case sole-witness cannot be relied
on, if it is otherwise reliable.
E
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 27 - Recovery of weapons at
the instance of the accused - Evidentiary value of - If not
supported by testimony of independent panchas - Held: The
recoveries need not always be proved through the deposition
of the panchas and' can be supported through the testimony
F of the investigating officer.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The case of the prosecution is based on
the testimony of PW12, the wife of the deceased. The
G substantive evidence on record is only through this
witness. The law on the point is well settled that a
conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a
sole witness. However, the testimony of a sole witness
H must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
359
RATHOD
leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. Where there A
is a sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with
an amount of caution and after testing it on the
touchstone of other material on record. The statement
of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not
leave any doubt in ihe mind of the Court and has to be B
corroborated by other evidence produced by the
prosecution. [Para 14] [377-0-G]
State of Haryana v. lnder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537;
Joseph v. State of Kera/a 2003 (2) SCC 465; Ram
C
Naresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 11 SCC
257 - referred to
1.2 The deposition of PW12 shows that while the
decJ!ased was being pursued and assaulted, her o
attention was focussed in so far as her husband was
concerned, which is quite natural. Except referring to the
initial blow which was given to one of the witnesses, her
testimony concentrates only upon .those who were
primarily responsible for having pursued and assaulted E
her husband. In her testimony she has concentrated only
upon the roles of those accused who were directly
responsible for having committed certain overt acts. Out
of large body of thirty-four accused, she named only nine
of them and attributed clear specific roles to them. If the F
incident went on for some length of time, it lends
complete credibility to the version of the witness in terms
of opportunity to observe salient features and the stages
of the incident. All the nine stages of the incident and
the acts at each stage are corroborated by other material G
on record. Though declared hostile on the issue of
identity of assailants, the other prosecution witnesses
also lend support to the substratum of tl)e case. The
material on record including medical evidence thus lends H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A complete support to the version as unfolded through the
deposition of PW12. [Para 16] [379-E, G-H; 380 8-C]
1.3 The intensity of the incident where the entire
village stood against the deceased, had impact on the
B witnesses who turned hostile one after the other. PW12
was also no exception to a certain extent and apparently
did not want to come and depose as a witness. Despite
summons having been issued by the Trial Court she
failed to appear. Her presence had to be secured by way
C of warrant issued by the Court and as such her presence
in the police station cannot be termed as excuse for
tutoring as suggested. In fact the way her presence had
to be secured by a warrant of arrest, lends ring of
credibility to her version. It is true that there are no
D physical injuries on her person but this by itself is no
ground to reject her testimony. The High Court has also
not rejected her testimony doubting her presence. [Para
17] [380 F-G; 381~A]
E
1.4 Pursuant to the disclosure statements made by
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-29 and A-30, certain weapons with blood
stains were recovered immediately on the day after the
incident. The aforesaid recoveries though alleged to be
not supported by the independent panchas, PW18 in his
F testimony deposed that such recoveries were made
pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused.
The recoveries need not always be proved through the
deposition of the panchas and can be supported through
the testimony of the investigating officer. The fact that
G the recoveries were made soon after the incident is again
a relevant circumstance and the recoveries can be
considered against the respondents as one more
circumstance. [Para 18] [381-B-E]
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEV.A.PPA
361
RATH OD
1.5 Thus, the deposition of PW12 is devoid of any A
exaggeration, completely trustworthy and reliable.
Therefore, though she is the sole witness, her evidence
is completely reliable and trustworthy. [Para 19] [381F-G]
_2.1 Section 149 IPC makes both the categories of
persons, those who committed the offence as also those
who were members of the same assembly liable for the
offences under Section 149 IPC, if other requirements
B
of the Section are satisfied. That is to say, if an offence is C
committed by any person of an unlawful assembly, which
the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed, every member of that assembly is guilty of
the offence. The law is clear that membership of unl~wful
assembly is sufficient to hold such members vicariously D
liable. [Para 21][383-F-G]
Mohd Aslam v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 9 SCC
362; Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (2)
SCR 123: (2004) 10 sec 657; State of U.P. V.
E
Kishan Pa/2008 (11) SCR 1048: (2008) 16 SCC
73; Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar (2011) 4 SCC
676 - relied on.
2.2 The liability of those members of the unlawful F
assembly who actually committed the offence would
depend upon the nature and acceptability of the
evidence on record. The difficulty may however arise,
while considering the liability and extent of culpability
of those who may not have actually committed the G
offence but were members of that assembly. What binds
them and makes them vicariously liable is the common
object in prosecution of which the offence was
committed by other members of the unlawful assembly.
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 11 S.C.R.
A Existence of common object can be ascertained from
the attending facts and circumstances. When the persons
forming the assembly are shown to be having same
interest in pursuance of vyhich some of them come anned,
while others may not be so armed, such unarmed
B persons if they share the same common object, are liable
for the acts committed by the armed persons. But in a
situation where assault is opened by a inob of fairly large
number of people, it may at times be difficult to ascertain
whether those who had not committed any overt act
C were guided by the common object. There can be room
for entertaining a doubt whether those persons who are
not attributed of having done any specific overt act, were
innocent by-standers or were actually members of the
0
unlawful assembly. [Para 22][384-E-G; .385-B-D]
2.3 The test adopted in *Masa/ti case is required to
be applied while dealing with cases of those accused
who are sought to be made vicariously responsible for
the acts committed by others, only by virtue of their
E alleged presence as members of the unlawful assembly
without any specific allegations of overt acts committed
by them, or where, given the nature of assault by the
mob, the Court comes to the conclusion that it would
have been impossible for any particular witness to have
F witnessed the relevant facets constituting the offence.
The test adopted in *Masalti case as a rule of prudence
cannot mean that in every case of mob violence there
must be more than one eye-witness. The Trial Court was
G therefore perfectly right and justified in relying upon the
testimony of sole witness PW12 and the High Court
completely erred in applying the test laid down in
*Masalti case. [Para 24) [387-G-H; 388-A-B]
H
*Masa/tiv. State ofU.P. 1964 (8) SCR 133; Mrinal
Das v. State of Tripura 2011 (14) SCR 411: (2011)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
363
RATHOD
9 SCC 479; lnder Singh v.
State of
A
Rajasthan 2015 (1) SCR 563: (2015) 2 SCC 734
- held inapplicable.
State of U.P. v. Dan Singh and Ors.1997 (1)
SCR 764: (1997) 3 SCC 747; Baddi Venkata
B
Narasayya and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1998) 2 SCC
329; Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 1996
(8) Suppl. SCR 225: (1997) 1 sec 283 -
distinguished.
c
3. Out of eight accused found guilty by the Trial
Court, going by the testimony of PW12 only six of them
that is to say Accused Nos.A-1, A-2, A-3, A-12, A-29 and
A-30 had caused final assault on the deceased which
resulted in his death. The other two accused, according o
to the witness had set the house of 'S' on fire and had
not participated in the final assault. Therefore, they are
granted benefit of doubt and their acquittal is confirmed.
However as regards other six accused, they having
pursued, taken out the deceased by lifting him from the E
house of 'H' and thereafter assaulted him in the field
adjacent to the house, the case of the prosecution as
against them stands completely proved. [Para 24]
[388-C-E]
.
F
4. The deposition of the wife of the deceased
examined as PW3 in the trial of the 351h accused is not in
any way inconsistent with her deposition in the present
matter as PW12. She had not named the accused any
manner in the present trial and her failure to identify said G
accused or ascribe any role to him does not lead to any
inconsistency. There is no inconsistency on any count
raising any doubt about the case of the prosecution.
[Para 25] [388-F-H; 389-A]
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
Case Law Reference
1964 (8) SCR 133
held inapplicable
Para 22
1997 (1) SCR 764
distinguished
Para 12, 23
8
(1998) 2 sec 329
distinguished
Para 12,23
1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 225 distinguished.
Para 12
2011 (14) SCR 411
held inapplicable
Para 12,23
2015 (1) SCR 563
held inapplicable
Para12,
c
23,23
(2002) 9 sec 537
referred to.
Para 14
2003 (2) sec 465
referred to.
Para 14
(2012) 11 sec 251
referred to.
Para 14
D (2001) 9 sec 362
relied on.
Para 18
..
2004 (2) SCR 123
relied on.
Para 18
2008 (11) SCR 1048
relied on.
Para 21
E (2011) 4 sec 676
relied on.
Para 21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 1957 of 2008
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2006 of the
F . High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
885 of2001
Shankar Chillarge, Sonia Shankar Chillarge,f.niruddha
P. Mayee for the Appellant.
G
Meenakshi Arora, Mahima, Anjani Kumar Jha, Vinay
Naware, Dr. R.R. Deshpande, Yuvraj Gaikwad for the
Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
365
RATH OD
UDAY UMESH LAUT, J. 1.This appeal by special leave A
challenges the judgment and order dated 22.06.2006 passed
by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.885 of
2001 acquitting the respondents namely original Accused Nos.
1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 29 and 30 of the charges under Sections
302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 436, 435, 452, 147 and 148 read
B
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution, deceased Tanaji
Pandurang Rathod, his brothers and father were trustees of
Durgamata Temple in Village Sevalal Nagar, Taluka North C
Solapur, Solapur. They were also members of Sahakari Krushi
Society, which society had received about 44 acres of
agricultural land from the Government. There was a dispute in
the village over this agricultural land. On 301h April, 2000 Tanaji,
his brothers and father had opened Durgamata Temple at D
4.30 a.m. and performed pooja. After completion of pooja
while Drums, Shankh and Bells were being played and blown,
at about 5.50 am, a group of persons came there holding sticks,
axes, swords and stones. The mob started assaulting Tanaji,
who received injury by a sword. His brothers and family E
members who tried to intervene were also assaulted. Tanaji
managed to run towards the cluster of houses of the family of
his uncle Hernia Tukaram Rathod. He was running for his life
and went from place to place followed by the mob. His brothers,
F
other relations, sister and wife Sarojini were all the while
pleading that he be spared but the mob was relentlessly after
Tanaji. The brothers who intervened were also assaulted.
Finally Tanaji had taken refuge in the house of his uncle Hernia
Tukaram Rathod. The members of the mob removed the tiles G
of the roof and managed to catch Tanaji who was then taken to
the field in front of the house of Hernia Tukaram Rathod and
assaulted with sword, axes and sattur. The members of the
mob then entered the house of Tanaji, carried away all the
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 11 S.C.R.
A
documents from his house and set them on fire. Valuables
like gold ornaments and cash were also taken away.
3. The family members managed to put Tanaji and other
injured in a tempo which carried them to Civil Hospital, Solapur
B for treatment. However, Tanaji was found to be dead. The
injured were given treatment and PW1 Parmeshwar, brother
of Tanaji informed the police about the incident, pursuant to
which FIR was registered. In his statement PW1 Parmeshwar
named thirty four persons from the mob and also attributed
C overt acts to some of those named persons. Crime No.37 of
2000 was therefore registered on 30.04.2000 and investigation
was undertaken. The body ofTanaji was sent for post-mortem.
4. PW 16 Dr. Pradeep Chinchure and Dr. P. V. Antrolikar
D performed post mortem on 30.04.2000 and found following
external and internal injuries:-
E
F
G
H
1. Incised wounds two in numbers right fronto paritetal
region,
a) 2"x2 bone deep, skull palpable fracture.
b) 2"x1/2 bone deep with palpable fracture.
2. Incised wound occipital region 3 % "x1" bone deep
with fracture skull,
3. Chop wound near left elbow joint 6cm x 4cm bone
deep with fracture numerous obliquely placed with loss
of anatomical continuity,
4. Incised wound 2" above left ankle joint 3"x1" muscle
deep,
5. Chop wound above left ankle with amputation exposing
muscle bones of left lower leg, foot attached by skin
anteriorly 7"x4" bone deep,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAM LAL DEVAPPA
367
RATHOD [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
6. Multiple incised wounds
A
a) right foot 3"x1 "bone deep on lateral maleolus of
right ankle,
b) 2"below right ankle 4"x1 "muscle deep,
c) 2"below inj. No.(b) about 3"x 1" muscle deep,
d) 2"below inj. (c) 2"x1"x muscle deep,
7. Incised wound above right knee joint 3"x1"x muscle
deep,
8. Incised wound on thigh lateral aspect upperpart4"x1"
bone deep,
B
c
9. Chop wound right palm 3"x1" bone deep with partial
amputation of middle, ring, little finger and complete D
amputation of inner finger which is missing.
10. Chop wound right fore-arm 3"x 2" bone deep with
fracture underlying bone. .
E
11. Chop (incised) would 7"x2" bone deep on back near
right buttock,
12. Incised wound right shoulder joint posteriorly 4"x1/2"
muscle deep,
13. Multiple linear incised wounds all over body more on
right shoulder area that foot and both legs.
And
F
G
1) Haematoma under-scalp right fronto parietal region,
incised wound on same region and on occipital region,
2) Fracture of occipital bone corresponds to column
No.18 about 7 cm. in length and injury to brain,
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
3) Fracture offronto parietal bone about 10 cm. in length
and injury to brain. Brain was congested oadamatus. Injury
to brain at the side corresponding to lnj. Nos.1 and 2.
Subdural haematoma all over brain more on right side
B
c
and occipital region.
The cause of death was:- "Hemorrhage and shock due
to multiple chop wounds with head injury with fractured
skull with Sub-dural haematoma with injury to vital
organs."
5. In the meantime PW-18 Pratap Kisan Pawar, C.P.I.
proceeded to the scene of occurrence and recorded spot
Panchnama Ext.75, stating inter alia that blood stains were
present in and around the temple i.e. on the tiles around the
o goddess on the southern side. The grill of middle pillars from
western side was stained with dried blood. The pillar thereafter
from right side was also stained with blood due to placing of
bleeding hand on it. Thereafter trail of blood stains led to tar
road between Mardi and Sevalal Nagar 1 OOft away from the
E temple on the western side, whereon multiple blood stains were
found at different spots. From the southern side of the temple
towards water tank and at a distance of 500ft near the well of
one P. T. Rathod four blood stained rocks and broken handle
of axe were found. Faint footprints were found on the recently
F
ploughed land near the deceased's paternal uncle Hernia
Rathod's land. At the house of deceased's cousin Maruti, the
doors had been damaged, the room had six tins of 12ft. x1 Oft.
size used as roof, out of which tin no.3 from the southern side
was removed. There were two bags of jowar and other food
G grain bags along with clothes and items of daily needs present
in the said room. At the house of Jaysingh Rathod, the doors
on the west facing room were removed and placed along the
eastern wall in vertical position, construction in the north-east
H corner of the said room was severely damaged and there were
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
369
RATHOD [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
bricks and earth lying around. The length of the said room A
was 12ft. x8.6ft. and there was a cot, food grain bags and
clothes kept there. At the house of Laxman Rathod, all the tins
forming roof of the said house were detached. The room was
about 15ft. x7.6ft.in dimension and a cot, food grain bags,
items of daily needs and clothes were found there. The roof of B
Shivaji Rathod's house was set on fire. Three tins from the
northern side of the house of Hernia Rathod were also removed.
At the ploughed area, pieces of blood stained saree, tube filled
with blood, three blood stained bags, a baniyaan and two small ·
sticks were found.
C
6. PW-18 Pratap Kisan Pawar, CPI attached four stones
with blood stains. He recorded statements of eight witnesses.
He arrested twelve accused persons on the same day. On the
next day, he recorded statements of eight more witnesses D
including Sarojini, wife of Tanaji. On that day pursuant to
disclosure statements made by:-
A 1- Ram Lal - sword, axe and sticks with blood stains
A2-Ramchandra - satturs, axe and sticks with blood
stains
A3-Limbaji - sword, axe and sticks with blood stains
A29- Shivaji Wadaje - spear with blood stains
· A30-Pandit- axe with blood stains,
were recovered and attached.
E
F
The attached articles were forwarded to the Chemical G
Analyzer and the reports in that behalf were later marked as
Exts.125 to 160 in the trial. On completion of investigation
charge-sheet was filed and thirty four persons were charged
for having committed the offences under Sections 147, 148,
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
302, 307, 324, 326, 395, 427, 435, 436, 452 read with 149
IPC.
7. In the trial, PW1 Parmeshwar stated about the incident
that he had gone to the temple to offer pooja along with his
B brothers Bhanudas, Prithviraj, Tanaji and theirfather and that
while pooja was going on, about 100 to 200 people from their
village came and started beating them. He however, stated
that he did not know if the accused were present in that mob
which assaulted them and also could not say who had beaten
C his brotherTanaji. The witness was therefore declared hostile.
PW2 Arjun, another brother of Tanaji also did not support the
case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. The third
brother Bhanudas examined as PW3 accepted that he had
sustained injuries but could not name the persons who had
D assaulted him and was also declared hostile. Fourth brother
Bharat examined as PW4 was similarly declared hostile. The
cousin of Tanaji named Shivaji Hernia Rathod examined as
PW5 stated that his cousins had sustained injuries and on that
day the roof of his house was burnt but he could not name the
E persons who had beaten them and had set the house on fire.
He was also declared hostile. The other brother of Tanaji
named Prithviraj was examined as PW6. He accepted that
he had sustained injury on the day in question and that while
F they were performing pooja, 100 to 200 persons had come
and assaulted them. He however did not support the case of
the prosecution on the identity of the assailants and was
declared hostile. Maruti Hernia Rathod was examined as PW7.
He accepted that Tanaji had come to take shelter in his house
G and that the roof of his house was removed. However he also
did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared
hostile. The sisterofTanaji named Vimal, examined as PW8
was declared hostile, having refused to support the case of
the prosecution. Mother of Tanaji named Theplabai was
H examined as PW9. She accepted that her sons and husband
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAM LAL DEVAPPA
371
RATHOD [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
had gone to the temple on the occasion of Mahapooja and A
that after hearing the shouts she had come out of the house.
However, as regards the identity of the assailants she did not
support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.
The medical reports produced on record at Ext.81 to 91
established that some of these witnesses had suffered injuries.
B
However, the witnesses could not state who had caused injuries
to them.
8. It appears that Sarojini, wife ofTanaji had left the village
after the incident and was staying with her brother at Bijapur in C
Karnataka. Despite summons being issued, Sarojini did not
turn up to tender evidence as witness. Finally she was brought
under a non-bailable warrant and was examined as PW12. In
her testimony PW12 Sarojini described the entire incident in
following terms:-
D
"I know incident which took place on 30.04.2000, on
Sunday. On Sunday in the morning my husband, his
brothers Bhanudas, Parmeshwar, Prithviraj and myfatherin-law Pandurang and my two children had gone. He must E
have gone around 4 a.m. to the temple. Around 5 a.m. I
could hear beating of drum, blowing of Shankh (Counch).
I thereafter heard shouts. I came out of the house. There
were many people who had assembled near the temple.
My mother-in-law also came there and wives of my F
brothers-in-law also came out of the house. I saw that
some quarrel was going on. I had seen that Ramchandra
Lalu Nadaje had given a blow to Bhanudas with iron bar.
My husband started running towards the water tank.
Behind him, Bharat, Parmeshwar and Prithviraj were also G
running. Many people were also running after them namely
Ramlal Devappa Rathod, Jaysing Devappa .Rathod,
Ramchandra Lalu Nadje, Shivaji Ramaji Wadaje and
other people. Thereafter, my husband had fallen down H
372
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
near the well. Thereafter, my husband was beaten by
Ramlal Rathod, Jaysing Rathod namely all the accused
before the Court were assaulting my husband with sword,
axe and stick, etc. I went there and tried to separate my
husband. When I tried to separate, at that time my brotherin-law was also beaten. At this juncture my husband got
a chance to run away and once again he started running.
All these accused before the Court once again chased
my husband. My husband thereafter went to the house of
Hernia. I also went after these accused.All the accused
also went to the house of Hernia. Then my brothers-inlaw were running. All the accused were chasing and were
assaulting my brothers-in-law. My husband had thereafter
entered the house of Maruti son of Hernia. All these
accused started breaking the door of the same house
where my husband had entered. These accused also tried
to remove the roof, galvanized sheets of the said house.
I was trying to protect my husband. Myself, my mother-inlaw stood in front of the door and requested people not
to beat my husband. My husband once again got
opportunity of coming out of that house. He immediately
came out and went inside house of Jaysingh namely son
of Hernia. My husband locked inside. Thereafter these
accused broke open the wall of the house and also
removed the tin sheet of roof. Myself, my mother-in-law
once again started to stop these accused. My husband
once again came out of house and ran in the house of
Laxman son of Hernia. The accused once again removed
. the tin sheet roof of house of Laxman and started to throw
stones inside the house. Thereafter, my husband once
again escaped and ran in the house of Hernia. In the
mean time, accused Ramchandra Shima Rathod, Kisan
Ganu Rathod, Sitaram Gopa Rathod had set the house
of s.hivaji on fire. I know all these accused. The witness
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
373
RATHOD [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
identified all the three accused namely Ramchandra, A
Kisan and Sitaram. When my husband entered the house
of Hernia, Ramlal Devappa Rathod Accused No.1,
Shivaji Ramaji Wadaje Accused No.29, Pandit Gopa
Rathod Accused No.30, Limbaji Manohar Rathod
Accused No.3, Ramchandra Lalu NadajeAccused No.2,
B
Jaysingh Devappa RathodAccused No.12, went inside
the house of Hernia. They caught my husband by his
hands and feet and took him in the field of Hernia Rathod
which is in front of his house. They assaulted him with
axe, sword, Sattur. At that tirrie, other accused had C
assaulted my brother-in-law, Hernia and others. We tried
to beg the accused not to beat us but they never listened
to us. My husband because of severe beating had fallen
unconscious. His both legs were cut off, his both hands 0 .
were chopped. So also, he was beaten over all parts of
the body. My brother-in-law Arjun, Prithviraj, Bhanudas,
Bharat, Parmeshwar. Theplabai my mother-in-law,
similarly Hari, Hernia Rathodwere also beaten. All these
injured were lying on the ground. I can identify all these E
accused. The witness now pointed out towards Accused
No.1 Ramlal Devappa, Accused No.29 Shivaji,Accused
No.30 Pandit, Accused No.3 Limbaji, Accused No.2
Ramchandra Lalu and Accused No.12 Jaysingh."
9. After considering the material on record, the Trial Court F
by its judgment dated 06.10.2001 held the respondents i.e.
Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 29 and 30 guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427,
435, 436, 452 read with Section 149 IPC. The Trial Court G
acquitted rest of the accused of all the charges levelled against
them.
By subsequent order dated 06.10.2001, the Trial Court
sentenced the respondents to various terms including life
imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
It was observed by the Trial Court that the death of Tanaji
· was proved by the prosecution to be homicidal and that out of
the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW12 Sarojini
alone had supported the case of the prosecution while nine
other eye witnesses had turned hostile. It stated that as laid
B down by this Court, it was possible and permissible to rely on
the testimony of a single witness if the evidence was trustworthy
and free from doubt. The Trial Court found the version of PW12
Sarojini to be natural, free from doubt and well supported by
other material on record, including the spot panchnama and
C the fact that the houses where Tanaji had taken refuge one
after the other were found to have been damaged and burnt.
While dealing with the question whether such version could be
relied upon in view of the decision of this Court in Masalti v.
0
State ofU.P. 1, the Trial Court observed that it would be unsafe
to rely on the evidence of witnesses who speak in general and
omnibus way without any specific reference to the overt acts
committed by them but PW12 Sarojini had given specific
names of accused and attributed specific overt acts to those
E accused. According to the Trial Court these allegations were
not omnibus or general in nature and as such the matter would
not be covered by the decision of this Court in Masalti (supra).
It thus found that the prosecution had completely proved that
Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 29 and 30 were guilty of the
F
offences with which they were charged.
10. The convicted accused i.e. the respondents herein
carried the matter by filing Criminal Appeal No.885 of 2001 in
the High Court of Bombay. The State did not file any appeal
G against the acquittal of rest of the accused and their acquittal
attained finality. The High Court by its Judgment under appeal,
acquitted the respondents of all the charges against them. It
was observed by the High Court that the entire case rested on
H
1. 1964 (8) SCR 133
STATE. OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
375
..
. RATHOD [UDAYUMESH LAUT, J.] ·
the sole testimony of PW12 Sarojini and if according to her ·A
she had followed the assailants and had tried to·save·her ·
husband, the possibility of her suffering any injury could not be .
ruled out but no :such injLlries were reported: Additionally, all
the injured persons as well as those whose houses were burnt .
had refused to identify any of the assailants. The High Court B ·
. ·
-
1
.
'
:
·
I
relied upon the decision of this Court in Masalti (supra) and
observed thus: 7 ; . . , . · ·. .; .. .
. .... _ • ·.
· ·
• · • ... , : , We find that the trial court was not justified in arriving
/ · · at a conclusion that it is the appellants-accused who are C
. · · · guilty of having committed murder ofTanaji and assaulted
; . the witnesses by taking. into consideration evidence of
· PW12 Sarojini and other evidence·i.e: medical and
c forensic whicli is merely of corroborative in nature and, ·
• ·: ·therefore the caution sounded by the Supreme Court in D
· ·· '; the.case of Masalti and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
. cited su'pra squarely applies to the factual matrix of the
, ,
,
,..
-- r
-
', -
,
•
··case. ··
·-
·
· 1.1. In this appeal by special leave we have heard Mr. E
Shankar'Chillarge, learned Advocate for the State and Ms.
Meeriakshi Arora; learned .Senior Advocate and Mr.Vinay
Navare, learned Advocate for.the respondents-accused. It was
submitted by Mr. Chillarge; learned Advocate that the impact
of the incident was such that though most of the eye-witnesses F
had 'suffered injuries; yet those witnesses including four
brothers; sister and mother ofTanaji had not supported the
prosecution case. : However, it was PW12 Sarojini who
described everything in detail how Tanaji was assaulted. All
· the stages of the incident were clearly stated by her and were G
fully supported by the other material on record .. In his
submission, testimony of even a single witness can be relied
. upon if it is found to be trustworthy and supported by material
on record, that reliance on the decision of Masalti (supra) Vias· H
.I I '•
'·
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 11 S.C.R.
A
not called for and that the assessment made by the High Court
was completely erroneous.
12. Ms. M~enakshiArora, learned Sr.Advocate and Mr.
Vi nay Nava re, learned Advocate submitted that the testimony
s of PW12 Sarojini was not worthy of reliance. In their
submission, her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was not
recorded the same day. Though it was asserted by the witness
that she tried to intervene and save her husband, she had not
suffered any injury making her very presence doubtful. It was
C submitted that the witness was in the police station on the
previous day before her examination in Court and was tutored.
It was further submitted that in case of an attack by a mob
having large number of persons, the principle laid down in
Masalti (supra) must be applied, that the principle though first
D adopted as a rule of prudence, has now assumed the status
as principle of law and, therefore, unless her evidence is
corroborated by at least one eye-witness, it would be hazardous
to rely on her testimony. Reliance was also placed on State
of U.P. v. Dan Singh and others 2, Baddi Venkata
E Narasayya and others v. State of A.P.3,
Binay Kumar
Singh v. State of Bihar', Mrinat Das v. State of Tripura5
and lnder Singh v. State of Rajasthan6•
13. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6303 of 2015 was filed
F on behalf of respondent No.8 submitting that one of the
suspects named Laxman Ramchandra Rathod was not tried
along with thirty-four accused tried in the present matter and
he was subsequently tried in Sessions Case No.359 of 2003.
G
2 (1997)3 sec 747
3 (1998)2 sec 329
• (1997)1 sec 283
• (2011)9 sec 479
H • (2015) 2 sec 734
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAM LAL DEVAPPA
377
RATHOD [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
During his trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the A
prosecutivn. Parmeshwar was examined as PW1 who again
turned hostile. Prithviraj, brother ofTanaji was examined as
PW2 who could not identify said accused Laxman. Sarojini,
wife of Tanaji was examined as PW3. Her evidence in this
trial shows that she had deposed that her husband was B
assaulted and had taken refuge in the houses of his cousins.
She however did not identify nor could she ascribe any role to
said accused Laxman. The Investigating Officer was examined ·
as PW4. In the face of inability of any of the prosecution
witnesses to identify said accused Laxman, he was acquitted C
by judgment dated 29.02.2008. This judgment having become
final, it is contended that.the case of the prosecution stood
finally rejected and that in any case there could be no
inconsistent findings, as regards the very same offence.
D
14. The case of the prosecution depends upon the
testimony of PW12 Sarojini. The substantive evidence on
record is only through this witness. The law on the point is well
settled that a conviction can well be founded upon the testimony
of a sole witness. However, as laid down in State of Haryana E
v. lnder Singh 7 the testimony of a sole witness must be
confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no doubt
in the mind of the Court. In Joseph v. State of Kerala8 it was
stated that where there is a sole witness, his evidence has to F
be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on
the touchstone of other material on record. It was further stated
in Ram Naresh v. State of Chhattisgarh9 that the statement
of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not leave
any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated G
by other evidence produced by the prosecution.
1 (2002) 9 sec 537
• 2003 (2) sec 465
• (2012) 11 sec 257
H
378
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
15. In the backdrop of the aforesaid principles, if the
deposition of PW12 Sarojini is analyzed, it discloses that the
incident happened in nine consecutive stages:
(i) In the early hours of the day in question many people
had assembled near the temple and shouts were heard.
A-2 Ramchandra gave a blow to PW3 Bhanudas with
an iron bar.
(ii) Tanaji started running from the temple towards the
water tank. With him PW4 Bharat; PW1 Parmeshwar
and PW6 Prithviraj were also running. A-1 Ramlal, A-2
Ramchandra, A-12 Jaysingh, A-29 Shivaji and others
were following.
(iii) Tanaji fell down near the well. He was beaten by A-1
Ramlal, A-12 Jaysingh and other accused with sword,
axe and sticks. At this stage PW12 Sarojini tried to
intervene.
(iv) Tanaji somehow managed to run away and went
towards the house of Hernia. All the accused were
following him. Tanaji managed to enter the house of
Maruti S/o Hernia. All the accused were trying to break
the door and remove the galvanized sheets on the roof.
At this stage PW12 Sarojini stood in front of the door
and requested the accused not to beat her husband.
(v) Tanaji got an opportunity, came out of the house and
went inside the house of Jaysingh S/o Hernia. He locked
himself in. The accused started breaking open the wall
of the house and remove tin sheets of the roof and started
throwing stones inside the house.
(vi) Tanaji once again came out of the house and entered
the house of Laxman S/o Hernia. He was followed by
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA
379
RATHOD [UDAYUMESH LAUT, J.]
the accused who again started removing the tin sheets A
of the roof and started throwing stones inside the house.
(vii) Tanaji once again escaped and entered the house
of Hernia. In the meantime A-27 Ramchandra, A-10
Kishan and A-7 Sita Ram set the house of Shivaji on
B
..
fire.
(viii) A-1 Ramlal, A-29 Shivaji, A-30 Pandit, A-3 Limbaji,
A-2 Ramchandra and A-12 Jaysingh entered the house
of Hernia, caught Tanaji by hands and feet and took him · c
to the field in front of the house of Hernia.
(ix) It was here that the aforementioned six accused
assaulted Tanaji with axe, sword and sattur. His legs
were cut off, his hands were chopped. PW12 Sarojini 0
identified these six accused persons.
16. The deposition of PW12 Sarojini shows that while
Tanaji was being pursued and assaulted, her attention was
focussed in so far as her husband was concerned, which is
quite natural. Except referring to the initial blow which was given
E
to Bhanudas, her testimony concentrates only upon those who
· were primarily responsible for having pursued and assaulted
her husband. All the stages as stated above and the acts at
each stage are corroborated by other material on record. The
F
fact that the incident started at the temple, then shifted next to
the well and then to the cluster of houses of Hernia is wellsupported by the blood stains found at these places as
disclosed in the spot panchnama as also by the damage
caused to the houses of Hernia. Though declared hostile on · G
the issue of identity of assailants, the other prosecution
witnesses also lend support to the substratum of the case. The
material on record including medical evidence thus lends
complete support to the version as unfolded through the
deposition of PW12 Sarojini.