Holding

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused A‑2 and A‑3 beyond reasonable doubt, setting aside their convictions, while upholding the convictions of A‑1, A‑5 and A‑6.

Summary

On December 10, 2006, six accused assaulted Vitthal Hingane and his brother Jagdish, resulting in Jagdish's death. The trial court and High Court convicted all six under sections 302 and 307 IPC, among other charges. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution proved the guilt of each accused beyond reasonable doubt, focusing on the reliability of oral testimony of the injured victim and a police officer, the absence of corroborative forensic evidence, and the necessity of a test identification parade. The Court held that the oral statements of the victim, uncorroborated by any physical or expert evidence, were insufficient to sustain the convictions of accused A‑2 and A‑3. However, it found ample corroborative evidence—such as the seizure of a blood‑stained chopper, medical testimony, and eyewitness accounts—to uphold the convictions of A‑1, A‑5, and A‑6. Consequently, the convictions of A‑2 and A‑3 were set aside while the others were maintained. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove the guilt of each accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether oral testimony of the victim and a police officer, without independent corroboration, can sustain a conviction.
Whether the absence of a test identification parade affects the reliability of identification.
The relative weight of oral evidence versus medical/forensic evidence.
The applicability of sections 302, 307, 34, and 149 IPC in the context of unlawful assembly.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 25, s. 27, s. 4
Bombay Police Acts. 135, s. 37(1)(a)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 144, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

murderattempt to murderproof beyond reasonable doubtoral testimonytest identification parademedical evidenceunlawful assemblyIPC sections 302IPC sections 307convictionappealevidence

Judgment

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 709 709

LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR A
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2015)
JANUARY 30, 2018 B
[N. V. RAMANA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307 – Prosecution case that
six accused persons armed with various weapons, on account of
some old enmity, assaulted PW-2 and his brother – A-1 was caught
C
red-handed but other accused persons managed to flee from the
spot – Injured were taken to hospital where brother of PW-2
succumbed to the injuries, however, PW-2 survived – Trial court
and High Court convicted all the accused on charges of murder
and attempt to murder – SLP preferred by A-4 dismissed by another
Bench of Supreme Court – Instant appeal concerned with the D
appeals filed by the other accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 –
Whether the Courts below were right in convicting the accused-
appellants and whether the prosecution proved their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt – Held: Deceased, the brother of PW-2, gave
statement to the police – In the said statement the deceased did not
E
state the names of A-2 and A-3 – Also, PW-2 in the supplementary
statement stated names of A-2 and A-3, but he neither specifically
attributed any overt acts to accused nor attributed any weapon
used by them – Further, neither there was any recovery of weapon
nor there was any expert opinion against A-2 and A-3 – Oral
testimony of PW-2 without independent corroboration cannot be F
basis for the conviction – Both the Courts went wrong in finding A-
2 and A-3 guilty – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A-2 and
A-3 beyond all reasonable doubt – Insofar as A-1 is concerned,
PW-18-doctor who examined the body of the deceased stated that
27 injuries were received by the deceased – The injuries were
G
attributable to a sharp weapon – A-1 was caught red-handed with
chopper (sharp weapon) which is corroborated with the evidence
of PWs, panch witness for the arrest, seizure of weapons, clothes
and also in terms of expert evidence – Thus, prosecution successfully
proved the guilt of A-1 beyond reasonable doubt – Insofar as
H
709
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A involvement of accused A-5 and A-6 is concerned, they are named
in the FIR as well as in the alleged oral declaration by the deceased –
Evidence of the doctor and injuries sustained by the deceased clearly
established the guilt of the A-5 and A-6 – Prosecution established
the fact of involvement and the guilt of accused A-5 and A-6 beyond
reasonable doubt –Conviction and sentence against A-2, A-3 set
B
aside – However, conviction and sentence u/s.302 IPC w.r.t. A-1
and conviction and sentence u/s.307 r/w.34 IPC w.r.t A-5 and A-6
maintained.
Evidence – Oral evidence and medical evidence – Which one
has precedence over the other – Held: Oral evidence takes
C precedence over the medical evidence unless the latter completely
refutes any possibility of such occurrence.
Evidence – Evidential standards – Proof beyond reasonable
doubt – Held: The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt – Accused has a profound right not to
D be convicted for an offence which is not established by the evidential
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – The law does not
permit the court to convict the accused based on suspicion or on
the basis of preponderance of probability.
Evidence – Test Identification Parade – Necessity of – Held:
E The necessity of holding Test Identification Parade arises only when
the accused are not previously known to each other – The Test
identification Parade is not a substantial piece of evidence, but is
useful for corroboration with the other evidence – It is a rule of
prudence – The Test Identification Parade, even if it is held may not
F be considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which the
conviction of the accused can be sustained.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The deceased (brother of PW-2) gave statement
to the police, and the said statement is not part of the prosecution
G evidence. In the said statement, the deceased has not stated the
names of accused (A-2 and A-3), secondly PW-2 in the
supplementary statement stated their names, but he has not
specifically attributed any weapon used by him. PW-11 has also
not attributed any overt acts to accused A-2 and A-3. During
investigation, the clothes of PWs. 2 and 3 were sent for expert
H
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 711
MAHARASHTRA

opinion and it discloses that there were no blood stains on the A
clothes. No weapons were recovered. Except the oral evidence
of PW-2, there is no other evidence on record to connect accused
A-2 and A-3 to the crime. PW-2’s oral testimony without
independent corroboration cannot be basis for the conviction.
Both the Courts went wrong in finding these accused guilty without
B
there being any evidence which points out at the guilt of these
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused
has a profound right not to be convicted for an offence which is
not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The law does not permit the court to convict C
the accused based on suspicion or on the basis of preponderance
of probability. The prosecution failed to prove the case against
accused A- 2 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 40, 42]
[729-D-G; 730-A-B]
2. Coming to the role attributed to the other accused, PW- D
2 stated that accused A-5, A-6 and A-4 assaulted on his right
wrist, near his eye and abdomen region, while accused A-1, A-3
and A-2 assaulted his brother on his head and hands. It is settled
law that oral evidence takes precedence over the medical evidence
unless the latter completely refutes any possibility of such
occurrence. The injuries attributed by PW-2 to the accused are E
attributable to a sharp weapon. Even PW-18-doctor opined that
the “cause of death was shock due to head injury in the form of
fractured skull bones with intra cranial haemorrhage with stab
wounds with multiple incised wounds (unnatural)”. The fact that
accused A-1 was caught red-handed with chopper (sharp weapon) F
which is corroborated with the evidence of PW-2, PW-1 panch
witness for the arrest, seizure of weapons and clothes, and also
in terms of expert evidence. Thus, the prosecution, by adducing
cogent evidence, has successfully brought home the guilt of the
accused A-1 beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 43] [730-B-C, F-G]
G
3. Coming to the involvement of accused A-5 and A-6, they
are named in the FIR as well as in the alleged oral declaration by
the deceased. Even the recovery of weapons supports the case
and the statements of prosecution witnesses are also consistent
pointing at the guilt of the accused. The evidence of the Doctor
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A and the injuries sustained by the deceased clearly establishes
the guilt of accused A-5 and A-6 and merely not attributing specific
overt act to an accused would not be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In every criminal trial, normally discrepancies are
bound to occur due to long lapse of time between the date of
incident and deposition of witnesses before the Court. When the
B
contradictions are so serious and create doubt in the mind of the
court about the truthfulness of the statement, then such evidence
is not safe to rely upon. The contradictions in the evidence
concerning this case are very trivial in nature and will not affect
the case of the prosecution. Taking into account all the
C circumstances coupled with the evidences, the case of prosecution
clearly establishes the fact of involvement and guilt of accused
A-5 and A-6 beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 44, 45] [730-H;
731-A, B, C-E]
4. The case against Accused A-2 and A-3 has not been
D established beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the same cannot
be said with respect to others, whose roles have been proved
with cogent evidence available on record. Therefore, the
conviction and sentence against Accused A-2 and A-3 set aside
and the conviction and sentence under Section 302, IPC with
respect to Accused A-1 and conviction and sentence under
E Section 307 read with 34, IPC with respect to accused A-5 and A-
6 is maintained. [Para 47] [731-G-H; 732-A]
Rakesh & Anr. v. State of M.P. (2011) 9 SCC 698 : [2011]
15 SCR 34; Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Anr. v. State of
Guj. (2012) 5 SCC 724 : [2012] 5 SCR 850; State of
F U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542 : [2009]
7 SCR 149 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 15 SCR 34 referred to Para 43
[2012] 5 SCR 850 referred to Para 43
G
[2009] 7 SCR 149 referred to Para 43
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1301 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2015 of the High Court
H of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2009.
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 713
MAHARASHTRA

Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mrs. Mansi A
Gupta, Moazzam Ali, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, K. Parameshwar, M/s. S.
M. Jadhav and Company, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. These five appeals, by way of special
leave petitions,are by five accused persons against the conviction imposed
by the HighCourt, wherein leave to appeal to this court has been granted
tothese accused.Facts being related, and the issue involved being
connected, we would like to deal with these cases by a common judgment. C

2. At the outset, it is to be noted that the High Court has partly
allowed the appeal preferred by the accused/appellantsand set aside
theirsentencefor the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147
and 148 of IPC, Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and
Section 37(1)(a) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The conviction D
of Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302
read with 149 of the IPC was modified to Section 302 read with 34 of
IPC, while maintaining the sentence imposed by the trial court.
3. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of these cases
are that onthe 10thof December, 2006 between 10:20 pm to 10:30 pm, E
one VitthalHingane (PW-2) and his brother Jagdish Hingane(deceased)
were returning from the office of one UttamGite, a worker of a political
party, at Mulund. When they reached the Saint Pius Lane, six persons
i.e.Accused No. 1 (Sunil Chandanshiva), Accused No. 2 (Vijay Nirmal),
Accused No. 3 (LateshKarlekar), Accused No. 4 (Sandeep Bhosale), F
Accused No. 5 (Vishnu Bule) and Accused No. 6 (Anil Gadekar)
confronted them from the opposite side.The accused, who were armed
with various weapons like chopper, sword, sickle and stick, on account
of some old enmity, assaulted Jagdish Hingane (deceased) and injured
VitthalHingane (PW-2). Hearing the shouts of the injured and the
deceased, PW-11 (Police Naik,DyaneshwarLadse) and Police Naik G
GhyanshamPawar (not examined), who were on patrol duty, rushed to
their help. It is alleged that Accused No. 1 was caught red-handed with
blood stained chopper in his hand but the other accusedpersons succeeded
in fleeing from the spot. An independent witness, PW-16 (Kishore Potdar),
who was passing through the same road, upon hearing the shouts, also
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A came to the help of PW-11. The injured (PW 2) was taken in an auto-
rickshaw to Mulund General Hospitalwhile PW-11 took the accused No.
1, who was caught red-handed,in a Maruti car,followed the said auto-
rickshaw to the aforesaid hospital. On the way, they met PW-15 (Jagdish
Shridhar Shetty), who identified the injured andaccompanied them to
Mulund General Hospital.
B
4. On arrival at the hospital, PW-11 handed over the custody of
accused No. 1, along with his blood-stained chopper, to Ghanshyam
Pawar for taking him to Mulund Police Station. One important aspect is
that all the while PW-11 stayed in the hospital along with the injured. It is
alleged that the deceased said to have revealed to PW 11, the names of
C four assailants, Sunil Kashinath Chandanshiva (Accused No. 1), Anil
Gadekar (Accused No. 6), Vishnu Bule(Accused No. 5) and Sandeep
Bhosale (Accused No. 4) and PW11 recorded the same in his case
diary.
5. In the meanwhile, two police personnel (PW-24 and PW-25)
D of Mulund Police Station, on receipt of the information of the incident
from PW-11 and GhanshyamPawar, rushed to the Mulund General
Hospital where, they came to know that Jagdish Hinganehad succumbed
to the injuries at about 11:23 PM, and the other injured,PW-2
(VitthalHingane) was being taken to Sion Hospital for further treatment.
E With the permission of PW-23 (Dr.Anirrudh Gokhale), PW-24recorded
the statement of the injured PW-2 at about 12:15 AM, and on the basis
of said statement PW 24 (PSI Joshi) registered the offence bearing
C.R. No. 595 of 2006 against all the accused.
6. Meanwhile PW-24 seized the blood-stained clothes of the
F injured PW-2 (VitthalHingane) under panchanama(Ex. 27). Thereafter,
PW-24 went to the spot along with PW-25 (PSI Mane) and PW-11 and
prepared spot panchanama(Ex. 29) in the presence of the panch witness
(PW-4). From the spot, the blood-stained mud was seized and
photographs of the scene of the offence were taken. Then PW-24
returned to the Police Station, made station diary entry and deposited
G muddemal in Malkhana. On the other hand, on the same night, at about
1 A.M., PW-22 (PSI Shrikant Ramdas) seized the chopper and blood-
stained clothes of Accused No. 1 under panchanama (Ex.-46) in the
presence of the panch witness PW-10 (Raju Jadhav). AccusedNo. 2
and 3 were also arrested on the same night of the incident. Their clothes
H were seized by PW-24 under panchanama (Ex. 34) in the presence of
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 715
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

the panchwitness PW-7 (Pradeep Shirodkar). At about 6:15 A.M., dead A
body of the deceased was brought to Rajawadi Hospital Post Mortem
Centre andon examination, the deceased was found to have sustained
27 injuries.
7. That being so, on 13.12.2006 blood stained clothes were seized
from Accused No. 4 in the presence of panch witness PW-6 (Gopal B
Naidu). On 14.12.2006, Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were arrested and their
blood stained clothes were seized in the presence of PW-6. Scythe and
sword were recovered from Accused No. 5 and 6 respectively (Ext.
40), in the presence of panch witness PW-8. On 19.12.2006 PW-25
recorded supplementary statement of PW-2.
C
8. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be
filed in the court against all the accused for various offences in the
following manner-
All accused persons in the alleged crime are still in Magistrate
custody since 20.12.2006. In order to submit charge-sheet against D
them in the court as enough evidence is available, in this crime
after investigation section 120(b) of Indian Penal Code and
Section 35 of Indian Arms Act have been removed and charge
sheet is prepared under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307
of Indian Penal Code with Sections 4, 25 and 27 of Indian Arms
Act and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of Bombay Police Act. E

9. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused in the
following manner-
Firstly:- That on 10/12/06 at about 22:20 to 22:30 hours at ‘middle
gully’ from Goshala Road, Sent Payas Road, Madanmohan F
Malviya Cross Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080, you
accused were members of unlawful assembly with the common
object of which was of commit murder of complainant Vithal
Narayan Hingane and his brother Jagdish Hingane and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC and
within my cognizance. G
Secondly :- That on the same date, time and place, you accused
being armed with deadly weapons with chopper, sickle, sword
and knife were members of unlawful assembly and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 144 of IPC and
within my cognizance. H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A Thirdly :- That on the same date, time and place, you accused
were members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the
common object of the said assembly namely to commit murder
of complainant Vithal Narayan Hingane and his brother Jagdish
Hingane by means of chopper, sickle, sword and knife which
offence you knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of
B
the common object of the said assembly and you being a member
of such assembly at the time of the committing of that offence
and thereby guilty of an offence punishable under Section 149 of
IPC and within my cognizance.
Fourthly:- That on the same date, time and place you accused
C were members of unlawful assembly and were at the time armed
with deadly weapons or which used as a weapon of offence and
was likely to cause death of complainant’s brother and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/s 148 of IPC and within my
cognizance.
D Fifthly:- That on the same date, time and place you accused
were members of unlawful assembly, you are being prosecuted
for your common object namely to commit murder of complainant
Vithal Narayan Hingane and his brother Jagdish Higgane and
with sword and knife which offence you knew to be likely to be
E committed in prosecution of the common object of the said
assembly and being a member of such assembly at the time of
the committing of that offence and thereby guilty of an offence
punishable U/s.149 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Sixthly:- That on the same date, time and place you accused
F were members of unlawful assembly you committed murder by
intentionally or knowingly causing the death of complainant’s
brother Jagdish Hingane by means of chopper, sickle, sword and
knife and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302, r/w
149 of IPC and within my cognizance.

G Seventhly:- That on the same date, time and place you accused
were members of unlawful assembly you accused did an act
namely assaulted complainant VithalNaryanHingane by means
of chopper, sickle, sword and knife on his stomach, forehead
and other part of the body with such intention or knowledge and
under such circumstances that if by that act, you had caused the
H death of complainant you would have been guilty of murder and
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 717
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

that you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 307, r/w A
149 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Eighthly:- On the same date, time and placeyou accused were
found in possession of deadly weapon without licence/authority,
i.e. chopper, sickle, sword and knife, in contravention of prohibitory
order and that you thereby committed an offence punishable U/ B
s 4,25,27 of Indian Arms Act, and within my cognizance.
Ninthly:- On the same date time and place you accused were
found in possession of deadly weapon without licence/authority,
i.e. chopper, sickle, sword and knife, in contravention of prohibitory
order and that you thereby committed an offence under the C
provision of Section 37 (1) r/w section 135 of Bombay Police
Act and within my cognizance.
10. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During the trial, prosecution examined in all 25 witnesses. It would be
pertinent to note that the prosecution has not marked the case diary in D
which the alleged revelation of names of accused was recorded by
PW 11.
11. The trial court, upon finding the accused guilty of committing
the crime,convicted themfor the offences punishable in the following
manner : E
ACCUSED CHARGES AND CONVICTION

A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, Section 143 R.I for 6 months and fine of Rs.
A-5, A-6 of IPC 200/-, in default to suffer R.I for 1
month.
F
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, Section 144 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.
A-5, A-6 of IPC 300/-, in default to suffer R.I. for
1 month.
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, Section 147 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.
A-5, A-6 of IPC 300/-, in default to suffer R.I. for
G
1 month.

A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, Section 148 R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.
A-5, A-6 of IPC 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for
2 months.
H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A A-1, A-2, A -3, A-4, Section R.I. for 6 months and fine of
A-5, A-6 37(1)(a) 200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for
r/w. 135 of 1 month.
Bombay
Police Act

A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, Section 4 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.
B A-5, A-6 r/w 25 200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for
Arms Act 1 month.

A-1, A -2, A -3 Section 302 Suffer life imprisonment and fine
r/w 149 of of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to
IPC suffer R.I. for 6 months.
C
A-4, A -5, A -6 Section 307 R.I. 10 years and fine of Rs.
r/w. 149 of 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I.
IPC for 6 months.

The trial court,for holding the accusedguilty, has reasoned as under-
D
a. That the test identification parade was not necessary as the
accused were known to PW-2 and the deceased.
b. That the recovery of the weapons and the clothes are not made
under suspicious circumstances.
E c. That the non-production of the alleged dying declaration recorded
by the PW-11 is not fatal.
d. Laid emphasis on the evidence of PW-2 and PW-11 being
trustworthy and natural. It has termed certain contradictions as
minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter
F and held that the oral evidence of above mentioned persons is
corroborated by other evidence.
12.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused
approached the High Court. The High Court, on considering the material
placed before it, has partly allowed the appeal of the accused and set
G aside the conviction of all the accused for offences punishable under
sections 143, 144, 147 and 148 of IPC. Further, the High Court converted
the conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the offence punishable
under section 302 of IPC read with section 34, and conviction of Accused
Nos. 2 to6 for the offence punishable under section 307 read with Section
34 of IPC.
H
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 719
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

ne of 13.The High Court while convicting the accused has emphasized A
I. for the following grounds: -
a. That non-attribution of specific role and weapons to individual
accused is not detrimental as the statement was made in a
condition wherein PW-2 had sustained grave injuries and was
f Rs.
traumatized. B
I. for
b. That there is corroboration of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-11
by the PW-15 to the extent that the injured and the deceased
d fine
ult to
were returning from the Office of UttamGite.
c. Even though the contents of C.A. Reports were not taken into
consideration, it is not prejudicial to the prosecution’s case as C
f Rs. there is strong and clinching evidence of the injured eye witness
r R.I. PW-2, which is fully supported and corroborated by the evidence
of another independent eye witness PW-11 and the medical
evidence on record.
d. The discrepancy concerning the recovery of knife from Accused D
No.1, between the statement of PW-10 (Raju Jadhav) and
Panchnama (Ex. 46), is immaterial and minor.
e. That the trial court had erred in adopting the approach of
distinguishing the overt acts attributed to the various accused on
the basis of evidence given by PW-2 and held them guilty for E
different offences.
14. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction by the
High Court, all the accused have filed special leave petitions before this
Court. However, the SLP preferred by Sandeep Bhosale i.e. Accused
No. 4 (being SLP (Crl.) No. 6713 of 2015)came to be dismissed by F
another Bench of this Court by its order dated 7th September, 2015.
Now, we are concerned with the appeals filed by other accused—
appellants.
15. Mr. K.Parameshwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
accused Nos. 1 and 2 made the following submissions- G
i. That the motive of alleged previous criminal litigation acts as a
double-edged sword which cannot be taken into consideration.
More so, when both the parties recognize themselves with
opposite political parties in that locality. Therefore, motive, is in
any case not required and should not be taken into consideration. H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A ii. That the FIR was filed with substantial delay and was based on
supplementary statements of PW2 rather than the previous
statement made by the deceased. Moreover, subsequent changes
made to the FIR in adding Section 302, IPC in the FIR, at a later
point of time is fatal for the prosecution.
B iii. That the dying declaration which is revealed to PW11 is not
made part of the prosecution evidence. This omission by the
prosecution needs to be explained by the prosecution as such
conduct gives rise to reasonable suspicion.
iv. Even assuming that the alleged dying declaration is true, and
C then too names of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are not revealed by the
declaration made by the deceased. The fact clearly shows that
subsequent inclusion of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are material
changes which discredits whole of prosecution’s case.
v. Weapons were recovered from Accused Nos. 1, 5 and
D 6;whileAccused Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted for offence of
culpable homicide amounting to murder, Accused Nos.5 and 6
were convicted only for offence under Section 307, IPC for
attempting to commit murder.
vi. That the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were already arrested and taken
E into custody even before the FIR could be registered. This fact
raises serious doubts as to the veracity of the incident and the
court should take note of this circumstance while considering
the guilt of the aforesaid accused as there is a possibility of false
indictment.

F vii. The alleged complaint given by PW2 is discredited by the very
fact that the doctor who treated PW2 was not able to recollect
whether PW2 had revealed names of the accused in his
complaint.
viii. PW2 himself contradicts his statements that, he never revealed
the names of the accused in the complaint, rather the names
G
were first revealed on 19.12.2006. This contradiction clearly gives
the final blow to the prosecution’s case.
ix. PW 15 and PW 16 have been declared hostile, which needs to
be taken into account.
H
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 721
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

x. Ghanshyam Pawar who is said to be present at the time of incident A
as well as in the hospital is not part of prosecution’s case.
xi. The seizure of weapons is done in suspicious circumstances.
xii. Chemical analysis test of the blood-stained weapons has not been
put to the accused. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into
consideration by the court. B

16. We have also heard Mr. Pardeep Gupta, learned counsel on
behalf of the Accused No. 3 and Mr. Anand Landge, learned counsel
appearing for accused Nos. 5 & 6. They contended that—
i. FIR is said to have been registered based on the dying declaration C
by the deceased and not on the supplementary statement given
by the brother of the deceased.
ii. No fingerprints were collected from the seized weapons.
iii. Accused no. 5 and 6 have not been identified in the test
identification parade. (TIP) D
iv. PW2 evidence does not recognize the specific role or specific
assault given by the accused persons.
17. Mr. Nishant RamakantraoKatneshwarkar, the learned counsel
for the State, while supporting the judgment of the High Court, states
E
that there are only minor contradictions which do not go to the root of
the matter, which might have crept because of the incident happening
late at night. Further, he states that there was no requirement of Test
Identification Parade, as the identity of the accused was known to the
deceased as well as to PW2. Furthermore PW2’s evidence, if read as a
whole, reveals thatthere is no contradiction rather, he states that he had F
revealed the names at the time of registration of complaint, thereafter
he did not reveal or there was no occasion for him to reveal about the
incident to anybody until 19.12.2006, when his statement under Section
161 CrPC was recorded by the police.
18. Having heard learned counsel for either side and given our G
thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand, we are of the view that before furthering our analysis into the
matter, it would be apt to observe the statements of PWs 2 and 11, on
whose evidence the Courts below have excessively placed reliance.

H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A 19. PW-2 states that the incident took place on 10/12/06, at about
10:20 to 10:30 PM, near the Saint Pius Lane, when he and his brother
were returning from the office of UttamGite. He states that they were
attacked at that time by Sunil Chandanshiva (Accused No. 1) with a
chopper, Anil Gadekar (Accused No. 6) with a sword, Vishnu Bule
(Accused No. 5) with a sickle, due to their old enmity with them. The
B
other accused present at the spot wereSandeep Bhosale (Accused No.
4), LateshKarlekar (Accused No. 3) and Vijay RamdulareNirmal @
Istriwala (Accused No. 2). Further he deposed that accused Vishnu
Bule, Anil Gadekar and Sandeep Bhosale gave blows to him on his right
wrist, near eyes and in abdomen region, while the accused Latesh, Vijay
C and Sunil assaulted his brother on head and hands. On hearing his cries
‘help, help’ (BachaoBachao) two police officers rushed towards them
andcaught hold of Sunil (A-1) while he was trying to flee away. With
their help, PW-2 and his brother were shifted to Mulund General Hospital.
Subsequently two persons namely Kishore Potdhar and Jagdish Shetty
accompanied the police officers. Thereafter PW-2 was referred to Sion
D
Hospital for further treatment where he narrated the incident to the
Police officer Joshi (PW 24) in presence of the medical officer on duty.
He admits that the Ex. 23 (complaint) and its contents are true.
PW-2 in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Accused Nos. 2
and 3 states that-
E
“I narrated to the police that all the accused persons had come
to beat me and my brother in Sant Pious Lane at Mulund.
However, I cannot assign any reason as to why the police did
not record the said fact in my complaint. At the time of recording
of my complaint at Ex. 23, I narrated to the police that the
F Accused No. 1 was armed with chopper, Accused No. 6 Anil
Gadekar was armed with sword and Accused No. 5 was armed
with sickle. However, I cannot assign any reason as to why the
above said fact is not specifically disclosed by the police in my
complaint at Ex. 23. I did not narrate to the police at the time of
G recording of my statement that accused Vishnu, Anil and Sandip
assaulted on my right knee, near my eyes and abdomen. I did
not narrate to the police while recording my complaint that
accused Sunil, Latesh and Vijay assaulted my brother on his leg
and hands. At the time of lodging of my report at Ex. 23, I did not
narrate to the police that during the incident, I shouted as ‘Bacho,
H
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 723
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

Bacho’. At the time of the lodging of the report in Ex. 23, I did A
not narrate to the police that at the time of the incident two
police officers rushed to the spot of incident and they caught
accused Sunil armed with the weapon at the spot of the incident.
Witness volunteers that he narrated this fact to the police at the
time of recording the supplementary statement”.
B
PW-2 in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Accused No. 5
states that-
“I was fully conscious at the time of lodging of report at Ex. 23,
I was fully aware about the injuries caused to me, by which
person and by which weapon. When I was admitted in the Sion C
Hospital, the police officers were deputed to guard me. It is true
that I did not disclose the name of assailants, the weapons used
to cause injuries to me and my brother by the assailants to any
police officer or other person till 19/12/2006 after filing my
complaint”.
D
PW-2 in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Accused No. 4
states that-
“It is not true to say that contents at Ex. 23 were narrated by me
to the police and the said contents were notread over to me by
the police”. E
20. PW-11 has stated in his deposition that he was attached to
Mulund Police Station since June, 2004. He was deputed as a beat
marshal along with Ghanshyam Pawar on 10.12.2006 from 7:15 p.m.At
about 10:20 p.m., while they were passing through J.N. Road to Madan
Mohan Malvia Road, they heard a noise ‘bachobacho’. On hearing the F
distress call, they rushed to the spot and saw that two persons were
assaulted by six assailants with choppers, sword, Kyota and knife. When
he got down from motor-cycle, the assailants ran away but, he alleges
that he caught SunilChandanshiva(A-1) having blood stained chopper.
Though Ghanshyam Pawar chased the other assailants but they ran
away. Thereafter, one more person by name ‘Kishore Potdar’ also came G
to help. While going to the Hospital, they were joined by Jagannathan
Shetty on the way and PW-11 asked him to accompany them to the
hospital. At about 10:40 p.m., they reached Mulund Hospital and at about
10:50 pm, he informed the incidentto duty officer PI Joshi and handed
over the custody of accused Sunil Chandanshiva and blood-stained
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A chopper to GhanshyamPawar to take them to the police station whilehe
stayed back at the hospital. He further states that he had noted down
the names of assailants Sunil Kashinath Chandanshiva, Anil Gadekar,
Vishnu Bule and Sandeep Bhosale in his case diary as revealed by the
deceased. He further deposed that the victim Jagdish Hinganedied at
11: 23 pm. Thereafter PW-11 and Ghanshyam Pawar took the Accused
B
No. 1 to Mulund Police Station.
PW-11 in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Accused No. 4
states that-
“It is not true that, I am deposing false that injured had disclosed
C to me the names of the assailants and I had noted down the
same in my pocket diary. P.I. Shri Mane did not seize my pocket
diary while recording my statement”.
21.As regards to the evidences of other witnesses who supported
the prosecution case, P.Ws.3 to 8 are the panch witnesses for seizure of
D clothes, blood, earth samples and weapons and they have admitted their
signatures on the respective panchanamas.
22.Dr.TapanBhattachraji (PW-17), the doctor who examined
Accused No. 5 (Vishnu Maruti Bule), stated that the accused hasgot
pain on the right palm. Accordingly, he has prepared injury certificate
E which has been admitted by him in the court. He has also stated that
injury on the person of Vishnu is simple in nature. However, the witness
has not identified Vishnu in the Court.
23. Dr. Sunil MohanraoJawale (PW-18), the doctor who performed
post-mortem on the body of the deceased, stated that 27 injuries were
F received by the deceased. He has also stated in his cross-examination
that injuries no.1 to 5 were inflicted on his head. He has further stated
that one of the reasons for the cause of death was huge loss of blood
due to multiple injuries as all the injuries except injury no.6 & 7 were
bleeding injuries. Such injuries were sufficient to cause death and if
person receiving those injuries is not given immediate treatment within
G 5-10 minutes, he may die.
24. Amarnath Munoli (PW-19) has stated that he has examined
the injured VitthalHingane (PW 2) and informed the police officers that
he was in fit state of mind to give statement and also made an
endorsement. He has identified such endorsement and has admitted his
H
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 725
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

signatures. He has stated in his cross examination that he was not near A
the patient when such statement was made by the injured.
25. Dr. Suraj Kumar Agarwal (PW-20) has stated that he has
performed operation on injured VitthalHingane (PW 2). The statement
(Ext. 23) was made in his presence and it was also endorsed by him.
The said witness has denied that Exhibit 23 and 69 do not bear his B
signatures (He did not endorse such statement it has been endorsed by
the witness as above mentioned).
26. DilipBapuraoThorat (PW-21) has arrested accused Sandeep
Bhosale (A-4) and has prepared his arrest panchnama and also identified
the accused in the court. He has also caught accused Vishnu Bule (A-5) C
and Anil Gadhekar (A-6) on 13-12-2006, seized their clothes and prepared
the panchnama.
27. At the relevant time, Shrikant kishanji Ramdas (PW-22) was
PSI on duty at Mulund police station where accused Sunil (A-1) was
brought in custody, Panchnama was conducted and clothes were seized. D
He states that he has arrested the accused Sunil and made its entry in
the station diary. He has also admitted that P.C. Ladse(PW 11) produced
the accused and chopper before him.
28. Dr. Anirudh Gokhale (PW-23) was the medical officer on duty
at Sion Hospital. The said witness has stated that he has given E
endorsement that Vitthal was in fit state of mind to make the statement.
29. Madhusudan Malhar Joshi (PW-24) has stated that he along
with PC Ladse, after getting to know about the incident proceded towards
the Mulund General hospital. He has stated that two injured persons
were present there. Thereafter, he states that injured Vitthal was taken F
to Sion Hospital for the treatment. Further, he stated that the statement
of Vitthal was recorded after obtaining the permission of the doctor and
endorsement with respect to his fitness to make the statement. He also
specifically mentions that, report with respect to the incident was sent to
the Magistrate within 24 hours.
G
30. Ananta Mana (PW-25),is a police inspector, Special Branch.
He has stated that he was informed about the incident by PI Joshi and at
Sion Hospital he saw one of the accused named Sunil and name of other
assailants were informed to him by PW-11. He has further stated that in
his presence, one of the accused Anil made voluntary statement and led
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A to the recovery of the weapon used in the office. He stated that since,
victim knew Vijay; he did not feel the necessity of conducting Identification
Parade. He specifically states that Accused No.2 and 3 were not
implicated in a false case.
31.In the backdrop of the factual matrix, we would like to deal
B with several contentions raised on behalf of the accused. It is specifically
put forth on behalf of the accused that P.W.2 in the initial statement has
not specifically disclosed the names of the Accused Nor attributed
individual roles of the accused, when the case of P.W.2 is that the accused
are very much known to each other. Further, P.W.2 revealed the names
of the accused a few days after the incident by way of a supplementary
C statement with an intention to implicate the accused because of previous
enmity. To appreciate this particular contention, it would be appropriate
to reproduce the part of the FIR (translated herein).
“The fact is that at the mentioned date, time and place all the six
accused persons mentioned here have made illegal mob, held
D dangerous weapons like knife, chopper, sword, scythe etc., made
life threatening attack on the deceased person named Jagdish
Narayan Hingne aged 26 and killed him. Similarly, they attacked
on his brother Vitthal Narayan Hingane and injured him seriously.
Hence the crime is filed against them.”
E 32.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the entire case
of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.11 who
are the eye-witnesses to the incident. Admittedly, basing on the statement
of P.W.2, the FIR was registered, and initially he has not revealed the
names of the accused. Subsequently in a supplementary statement, he
F has narrated the details of the incident.
33.The value to be attached to the FIR depends upon facts and
circumstances of each case. When a person gives a statement to the
police officer, basing on which the FIR is registered. The capacity of
reproducing the things differs from person to person. Some people may
G have the ability to reproduce the things as it is, some may lack the ability
to do so. Some times in the state of shock, they may miss the important
details, because people tend to react differently when they come across
a violent act. Merely because the names of the accused are not stated
and their names are not specified in the FIR that may not be a ground to
doubt the contents of the FIR and the case of the prosecution cannot be
H
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 727
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

thrown out on this count. Coming to the facts of the case, it is nobody’s A
case that P.W.2 was not injured and was not hospitalized for sometime
due to the injuries caused to him by the assailants and also lost his brother.
It is most probable that he might have given a general statement for the
purpose of registering the complaint which was recorded by police few
hours after the incident has taken place. Later, when once he was out
B
of shock, the supplementary statement was recorded, then he has
disclosed the names of the accused and has attributed specific overt
acts to each of the accused. It is settled law that FIR need not be an
encyclopedia of the incident laying out miniscule details and instances of
how the crime was committed. Hence, in view of the above discussion
we do not find force in the contention put forth on behalf of the accused C
which is rightly rejected by both the Courts.
34.It is argued by the learned Advocates on behalf of the accused
that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and for the first time
P.W.2 recognized the accused in the Court which is fatal to the case of
the prosecution. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the accused were known D
to him and the other eye-witness i.e. P.W.11, has never stated that he
has seen the face of the assailants. The necessity of holding Test
Identification Parade arises only when the accused are not previously
known to each other. The Test Identification Parade is not a substantial
piece of evidence, but is useful for corroboration with the other evidence.
It is a rule of prudence. The Test Identification Parade, even if it is held E
may not be considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which the
conviction of the accused can be sustained. In the case on hand, the
absence of Test Identification Parade will not vitiate the case of the
prosecution as the accused and P.W.2 were known to each other.
35.We would like to deal with the case of accused Nos. 2 and 3 F
first and then the case of the accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6. The issue that
crop up for consideration is whether the Court below was right in
convicting the accused, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt? We are conscious of the fact that
the golden thread which passes through out criminal jurisprudence is the G
standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, particularly, in this case, where
certain evidences were not brought on record before the Court.
36.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased gave the
statement to P.W.11 giving the names of assailants as Sunil Kashinath
Chandanshiva (A1), Anil Gadekar (A6), Vishnu Bule (A5) and Sandeep H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A Bhosale (A4). This particular statement was not made part of the
prosecution evidence. Even in his statement to P.W.11, the names of the
accused 2 and 3 did not find place. An objection has been taken by the
State that the Court should not take such evidence into consideration as
such statement does not have any significance in law. We cannot ignore
the fact that there is clear cut suppression of this document as the State
B
is unable to explain the reason as to why such important document could
not be produced before the Court. Although the case diary has not been
produced before the Court but the possibility of existence of such document
is supported by P.W.11’s evidence which creates a suspicion in our mind
concerning the implication of Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
C 37. In the light of the evidence of P.W.11, the statement of the
deceased, the fact that weapons were not recovered from accused Nos.
2 and 3, no blood stains were found on the clothes of the accused, coupled
with the arrest and presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the police station
immediately after the incident gives rise to suspicion concerning the
D involvement of these accused. It is also the case of the accused No.3
that P.W.2 was earlier convicted in a case basing on their evidence.
38. Both the trial Court as well as the High Court have found
accused Nos. 2 and 3 guilty. It is necessary to extract the finding of the
High Court:
E “In our considered opinion, this submission cannot be accepted
in the face of overwhelming evidence on record that the testimony
of P.W.2 Vitthal, who has categorically deposed about all these
accused assaulting him and his brother with the weapons in their
hands. The names also find mention in the complaint lodged
F immediately. The evidence on record also proves that all the
accused have come together at the spot and started assault on
both P.W.2 Vitthal and his brother Jagadish simultaneously.
Therefore, merely because in the traumatic and serious condition
in which the deceased Jagadish was, when he made that oral
dying declaration to P.W.11. Merely because he has not stated
G about the specific overt act committed by these two accused,
their case cannot be differentiated so as to give them benefit of
doubt. Their presence at the spot and their complicity in the assault
is required to be held as proved.”
39.It is also relevant to extract the finding of the trial Court on this
H aspect:
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 729
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

“The facts and evidence brought on record reveal that all the A
accused persons with their common object to commit murder of
Jagadish Hingne and VitthalHingne formed an unlawful assembly
and at the relevant date and time, attacked on them with deadly
weapons causing them severe bodily injuries which resulted in
the death of Jagadish Narayan Hingne. As per the evidence of
B
VitthalHingne, accused Sunil Chandanshiva, LateshKalekar and
Vijay Nirmal @ Istgriwala assaulted Jagadish Hingne and
therefore, they are the author of his death. Similarly accused
Sandip Bhosale, Vishal Bule and Anil Gadekar assaulted
VitthalHingne causing stab wounds and severe bodily injuries on
vital part of his body and thus I have no hesitation to hold that the C
prosecution has proved the case”.
40. The deceased gave statement to the police, and for the reasons
best known to them, the said statement is not part of the prosecution
evidence. In the said statement, the deceased has not stated the names
of accused Nos. 2 and 3, secondly P.W.2 in the supplementary statement D
stated their names,but he has not specifically attributed any weapon
used by him. P.W.11 has also not attributed any overt acts to accused
Nos. 2 and 3. During investigation, the clothes of P.Ws. 2 and 3 were
sent for expert opinion and it discloses that there were no blood stains on
the clothes. No weapons were recovered. Except the oral evidence of
P.W.2, there is no other evidence on record to connect accused Nos. 2 E
and 3 to the crime. P.W.2’s oral testimony without independent
corroboration cannot be basis for the conviction. Both the Courts went
wrong in finding these accused guilty without there being any evidence
which points out at the guilt of these accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable F
doubt. Accused has a profound right not to be convicted for an offence
which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The law does not permit the court to convict the
accused based on suspicion or on the basis of preponderance of
probability.
G
41. In our opinion, an ingenious mind can question anything and,
on the other hand, there is nothing which it cannot convince. When you
consider the facts, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the matter
is proved or whether it is not a reasonable doubt in this sense. The
reasonableness of a doubt must be a practical one and not on an abstract
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A theoretical hypothesis. Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean
between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt.
42.In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that
the prosecution failed to prove the case against accused Nos. 2 and 3
beyond reasonable doubt.
B 43.Coming to the role attributed to the other accused, P.W.2 stated
that accused Vishnu Bule (A-5), Anil Gadekar (A-6) and Sandeep
Bhosale (A-4)assaulted on his right wrist, near his eye and abdomen
region, while accused Sunil KashinathChandanshiva (A-1), Latesh (A-
3) and Vijay @ Istriwala (A-2) assaulted his brother on his head and
C hands. It is settled law that oral evidence takes precedence over the
medical evidence unless the latter completely refutes any possibility of
such occurrence [Rakesh&Anr. v. State of M.P., (2011) 9 SCC 698;
Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Anr. V. State of Guj., (2012) 5 SCC 724;
State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542]. In order to establish
the consistency of the evidence and to further buttress the conclusion,
D we may have to observe the injuries noted during the medical examination
on the body of the deceased. Injury No.1 (sutured wound), No.2 (incised
wound), No.3 (incised wound), No.4 (incised wound) and No.5 (incised
wound) are present on the head. While injury No.7 (contusion), No.8
(incised wound), No.9 (incised wound), No.10 (incised wound), No.11
E (incised wound), No.12 (incised wound), No.13 (incised wound), No.18
(incised wound), No.19 (incised wound), No.21 (incised wound), No.22
(incised wound), No.23 (incised wound), and No.24 (chop wound) were
found to be inflicted on the deceased. We find that the injuries attributed
by P.W.2 to the accused are attributable to a sharp weapon. Even P.W.18
(Dr.SunilMohanraoJawale) opined that the “cause of death was shock
F due to head injury in the form of fractured skull bones with intra cranial
haemorrhage with stab wounds with multiple incised wounds (unnatural)”.
The fact that accused No.1 was caught red-handed with chopper (sharp
weapon) which is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.1, panch
witness for the arrest, seizure of weapons and clothes, and also in terms
G of expert evidence. Thus, the prosecution, by adducing cogent
evidence,has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused No. 1
beyond reasonable doubt.
44.Coming to the involvement of accused Nos. 5 and 6, they are
named in the FIR as well as in the alleged oral declaration by the
H deceased. Even the recovery of weapons supports the case and the
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF 731
MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

statements of prosecution witnesses are also consistent pointing at the A
guilt of the accused. The counsels on behalf of these accused tried to
submit that the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be believed as there are
contradictions between his statement in the FIR and the evidence before
the Court. They submit that P.W.2 has not attributed individual role on
the day of the incident. The evidence of the Doctor and the injuries
B
sustained by the deceased clearly establishes the guilt of accused Nos.
5 and 6 and, as already observed by us, merely not attributing specific
overt act to an accusedwould not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
In every criminal trial, normally discrepancies are bound to occur due to
long lapse of time between the date of incident and deposition of witnesses
before the Court. When the contradictions are so serious and create C
doubt in the mind of the court about the truthfulness of the statement,
then such evidence is not safe to rely upon. We feel that the contradictions
in the evidence concerning this case are very trivial in nature and will
not affect the case of the prosecution.
45. Looking at the injuries caused to P.W.2, it can be seen from D
the injury certificate (Ex.No.20) that these are injury No.1 (incised wound
on forehead), second injury (incised wound on the right forearm) and
third injury (incised wound on the right hypochondria with omentum
protruding out). Taking into account all the above stated circumstances
coupled with the evidences, we are of the considered opinion that the
case of prosecution clearly establishes the fact of involvement and guilt E
of accused Nos. 5 and 6 beyond reasonable doubt.
46. Lastly, the counsel appearing on behalf of Accused No. 1 has
contended that the non-examination of Ghanshyam Pawar is fatal for
the prosecution. We do not agree with such contention as the prosecution
has the discretion to produce any witness based on its prudence.In the F
entire facts and circumstances of this case, the factum of arrest and
seizure of weapon from Accused No. 1 has been cogently established
by PW-11 and other evidences on record. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that the aforesaid contention is meritless as well.
47. In light of the above discussion, we are in agreement that the G
case against Accused No. 2 and 3 has not been established beyond
reasonable doubt, whereas the same cannot be said with respect to others,
whose roles have been proved with cogent evidence available on record.
Therefore, while setting aside the conviction and sentence againstAccused
Nos. 2 and 3, we maintain the conviction and sentence under Section H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A 302, IPC with respect to Accused No. 1 and conviction and sentence
under Section 307 read with 34, IPC with respect to accused Nos. 5 and
6. Accordingly, we direct the concerned authorities to set free Accused
Nos. 2 and 3 forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
48. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
B

Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.

C

D

E

F

G

H