The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a Police Constable and others in a murder case after rejecting his alibi plea and finding the evidence of three eyewitnesses to be of sterling quality.

The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed by the accused-appellants challenging their conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asserted, “It is true that there may be other eye witnesses who were not examined. But PW-2 is not a witness who was related in any manner to the deceased. He had no enmity against the accused. As the evidence of the three eye witnesses is of sterling quality, the failure to examine the other alleged eye witnesses will not be fatal for the prosecution case.”

Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Sanjay Kharde represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The father of the first witness(PW 1) owned five acres of land in a village where PW-1 and the appellants were residing. According to the prosecution’s case, there was a partition effected between PW-1’s father and his brothers. The land was jointly owned, and water was drawn from a nearby river through a pipeline. When the accused restrained PW-1 from taking water through the pipeline, the dispute started, and complaints were lodged at the police station. The relationship between the family of the PW-1 and the family of the accused was strained.

One day, when PW-5 was fetching water from a hand pump, she started shouting that the accused were assaulting the deceased with swords. PW-1 went up to the hill and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with swords in their hands. One Bajrang (PW-2), who was grazing cattle on nearby land, had also seen the incident of the accused giving blows by swords on the knees, hands and legs of the deceased. At that time, accused no.9-Tanaji (appellant), a police constable, came to the spot and took the sword from the hands of accused no. 1, Ratu, and started giving blows to the right knee of the deceased. Though PW-1 requested the accused not to assault the deceased, the accused did not pay any heed.

The appellant Tanaji is accused no.9 and the appellants Ratu, Satu and Maruti are the other three accused persons. There were a total of 9 accused. The Trial court acquitted the fourth accused. The rest of them were convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed their conviction.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the evidence on record, the Bench found no material omissions or contradictions regarding the role ascribed to the appellants. The only omission brought on record was that the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) did not mention that after attending one class, he came to the house on the date of the incident. As per the Bench, this omission was not so relevant as to amount to contradiction as provided in the explanation to Section 162 of CrPC.

Reference was made to the evidence of PW-10-P.I., whose version was that from July 18 to July 19, 2001, some important duty was assigned to the accused no.9 Tanaji. The witness admitted that the accused, Tanaji, was not in the police station on those two days. As the appellant-accused Tanaji had not adduced evidence to show that he was elsewhere when the incident occurred, the Bench rejected his alibi plea.

As per the Bench, the testimony of the witnesses regarding the role ascribed to the accused persons was reliable. The accused no.4 was acquitted by the Trial court as he proved the defence of alibi. Hence, the acquittal of the fourth accused was of no help to the other accused. Finding the evidence of the three witnesses to be of sterling quality, the Bench held that the failure to examine the other alleged eyewitnesses will not be fatal for the prosecution case.

Thus, dismissing the appeals, the Bench directed the accused no. 9-Tanaji Shamrao Kale, to surrender within one month from to undergo the remaining sentence. The Bench further ordered, “If accused nos.1, 2 and 5, who have challenged the impugned judgment, have already undergone the sentence and have been released, the question of the said accused (appellants in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3385 of 2012) being taken to custody will not arise. However, if they have not been released after undergoing the sentence, they must undergo the remaining sentence.”

Cause Title: Tanaji Shamrao Kale v. State of Maharashtra (Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Vatsalya Vigya, Advocates Gautami Yadav, Pranjal Chapalgaonkar

Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjay Kharde, Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.