Held that the conviction under Section 307 IPC was unsustainable due to lack of proof regarding identification and missing critical evidence, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and set at liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 APEAL 51 OF 2010
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2010
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1152 OF 2010
Shri. Bapurao Dada Borate, age: 29 years, Occn. Agriculturist resident of Mandave, Taluka: Malshiras, District: Solapur
.. Appellant Orig. Accused.
-versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
Mr. Tejsweeta Kadam i/b Mr. Rahul Kate, for the appellant.
Ms. R. M. Gadhavi, APP for the Respondent State.
CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 4th January, 2012
Oral Judgment.
2 APEAL 51 OF 2010
default R.I. for one month, imposed upon the appellant, on conclusion Special Case NO.2 of 2006.
On 4th March, 2006, at about 10.00 a.m., victim -Nanasaheb Gaikwad was walking by a busy street in the village with his three year old son. He was assaulted by the appellant, who came from behind. The appellant gave blows by sword which led to amputation of finger of the victim. The finger was chopped and was lying on the spot. Witnesses who had gathered informed the family of victim. The house of victim was just 500 feet away from the spot of incident. The victim was taken to hospital and a report was given whereupon an offence was registered. Since there were allegations about appellant having given caste based abuses to the victim, who belonged to Scheduled Caste, an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was also registered. The investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who on conclusion of investigation sent the chargesheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malshiras who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Malshiras.
APEAL 51 OF 2010
3
4 APEAL 51 OF 2010
She stated that Nanasaheb informed his relations that the assailant was the present appellant.
5 APEAL 51 OF 2010
and it took half an hour to reach her house from the bus stop. Bus journey itself took 20 minutes. Therefore, according to learned counsel, it was not possible for the witness to see any assault on Nanasaheb Gaikwad at 10.00 a.m. at the spot.
APEAL 51 OF 2010
6
spot.
7 APEAL 51 OF 2010
stated that though the articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the report from the Laboratory has not been tendered before the trial Court for no reason whatsoever. Ordinarily if the articles are sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, report ought to have been received and if it might have received, but was not produced, the inference would be that it was not tendered because it was not incriminating. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Judge could have inspite of these deficiencies relied on the sole testimony of P.W.-1 Tejashree and held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Mere seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim should not result in acceptance of whatever evidence is tendered by the prosecution in the Court.
8 APEAL 51 OF 2010
proved, and lastly, the report from Forensic Science Laboratory which could have shown that the sword allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant had stains of blood matching with those of victim, has not been produced.
(R. C. CHAVAN, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction sustains when the sole eyewitness identification was untested by a parade, the incident spot was public, and the FIR and forensic lab report were not produced.
Whether the absence of corroborating evidence and material مى saling defeats the prosecution case warranting acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raju Alias Rajendra -vs State of MaharashtraReferred¶9
(1998) Supreme Court Cases 169
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bapurao Dada Borate
The State of Maharashtra
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
