Holding

The High Court’s acquittal of the accused was upheld as the testimony of PW‑2 was unreliable and the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra charged Raju Bhaskar Potphode with murder under Section 302 IPC for allegedly stabbing Sunil Gore during a cricket match dispute. The trial court convicted Potphode based primarily on the testimony of PW‑2, a close relative of the deceased, despite other witnesses recanting their statements. On appeal, the Bombay High Court found PW‑2's evidence unreliable, noting his failure to render medical aid, inform police, and inconsistencies in his statements, and consequently acquitted the accused. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that PW‑2 had no motive to falsely implicate Potphode. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings, observing that the cumulative infirmities in PW‑2’s testimony undermined the conviction and that the discovery of the knife was not sufficient to overturn the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal intact.

Issues considered

Whether the testimony of PW‑2, a close relative of the deceased, is reliable enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of the alleged unreliability of PW‑2’s evidence.
Whether the discovery of the alleged weapon, found in an open space, can compensate for the lack of credible eyewitness testimony.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCwitness credibilityacquittalhigh court judgmentSupreme Court reviewcircumstantial evidencecriminal trial

Judgment

A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
1-•
RAJU BHASKAR POTPHODE

JULY 18, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, Jl]

t
Penal Code, 1860; s. 302:

Murder-Accused allegedly committed murder ·of the deceased in the
c presehce of prosecution witnesses, close relatives of the deceased-FIR_:_ "
Charge sheet-Trial Court relying on evidence of PW2 convicted the accused
for committing the offence punishable uls. 302 JPC and sentenced him to life
imprisonment-Doubting the veracity of evidence of PW2, High Court
acquitted him-On appeal, Held: Injured was not taken to Hospital by PW2
D but by others-PW2 did not inform the police about the incident but left for
his home-High Court rightly observed such conduct on the part of PW2 ~

quite unnatural-Though Investigating Officer claiming to have recorded the -+
statement of PW2 on the date of occurrence but PW2 himself stated that it
was not recorded on that date-Jn the circumstances, High Court rightly
found his presence at the time of occurrence highly doubtful and discarded
E his testimony-Reasons given by the High Court while discarding the
testimony of PW2 and consequent(v directing acquittal of the accused do not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference-Evidence-Eye witnesses-
Testimony of

In a cricket competition, boys of a locality of Jogeshwari (E) in Mumbai
F participated. On a trivial issue there start_ed a quarrel between two boys, one ~-

was the brother of the accused and the other was the deceased. The altercation
was allegedly witnessed by another participant, the respondent, who intervened ·
and started taking the side of his brother. Other members of the Cricket Club .
also intervened to pacify the situation and asked the respondent-accused to
G leave to platground. It is further alleged that respondent left the field but
returned back with a knife and stabbed the deceasd on his abdomen. The
deceased collapsed on the ground. The respondent threatened others for dire
consequences and ran away. The deceased was taken to a Hospital, where he t·
was declared brought dead. Later, the first informant, PW 1 went to the Police

H 396
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJU BHASKAR POTPHODE 397

~ ~- Station and lodged an FIR. The dead body was sent for post-mortem A
examination. The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses and
on the next day, the accused was arrested from his residence. His clothes
were attached under the seizure panchanama in the presence of two panchas,
PW 8 and PW 9. The blood stains were found on the clothes of the accused.
The accused was interrogated in presence of the panchas and weapon of crime
was recovered at his instance. After completion of investigation, the accused
B,
was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC in the court of
i the Metropolitan Magistrate. Trial Court examined 12 witnesses. However,
, expect PW-2 others resiled from the statements made during investigation.
PW-1 partially supported the prosecution version but claimed that he had not
seen the occurrenct. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of PW- C
2 ·recorded conviction of the accused for committing the offence punishable
u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court analysed
the evidence of PW-2 in detail considering the fact that he was a close relative
of the deceased. However, it found that evidence of PW-2 to be unreliable and
not worthy of credence and accordingly directed the acquittal of the accused.
Hence the present appeal. D

Appellant-State contended that there is no reason for PW-2 to falsely
implicate the accused; and that his presence was but natural and the aspects
highlighted by the High Court about the credibility of bis evidence are not
founded on any rational basis.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. None of the relatives came near the spot. The injured was
taken to the hospital by others. High Court found it unnatural that PW-2 did
not bother to provide medical assistance. He also did not inform the police. F
He claimed to have left for his home. Whether he came back or not is another
doubtful question because he himself admitted in cross-examination that he
stayed at home. As rightly observed by the High Court it is quite unnatural
conduct on the part ofa close relative tbat he would leave the relative in a
pool of blood not bothering to take him to the hospital and nor to return after
having left the spot. Further his conduct in not informing the police is another G
relevant factor. (Para 7) (401-D, El

1.2. The Trial Court placed reliance on the so-coiled discovery of alleged
weapon of crime pursuant to the disclosure by the accused. The High Court
has rightly noticed that the knife was found in an open space and was clearly
H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2007) 8 S.C.R.

A visible. lnve5tigating Officer admitted that anybodr could have seen the knife
even without much.effort. (Para 8) (401-Fl

D From the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000 of the High· Court of
Judicature At Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 1996.

· Ravindra Keshvarao Adsure for the Appellant.

U.U. Lalit, and Apama Bhat (for Manik Karanjawala) for the Respondent.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
. rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing acquittal
ofrespondent-Raju Bhaskar Potphode (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused').
F ·.Accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay,
in Sessions Case No. 355 of 1993. Accusations which led to the trial of the
accused was that he had on 7.2.1993 at about 4.30 p.m. committed the murder
of one Sunil Gore (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by stabbing with
.G aknife.
2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follow:

On 7th February, 1993, the Sai Krupa Cricket Club had organized Single

H
STATEOFMAHARASITTRA v. RAJU BHASKAR POTPHODE [PASAYAT,J] 399

Wicket Cricket Competition on an open playground near Sai Mandir, Samarth A
·!\"
Nagar, Majaswadi, Jogeshwari (E). In the said competition boys ofMajaswadi
locality 44 boys including the first infonnant-Ravindranath Dam le, (PW I),
Uday Gore PW 2), Arun Raghunath Paranjape (PW 3), Santosh Lad (Pw 4)1
Girish Modak, had participated. At about 9 .00 a.m. after drawing of the lots,
as regards which player was to play with whom, the competition started. Vijay B
Potphode the brother of the respondent, and one Mr. Troy had allegedly
taken part in the said competition. At about 4 p.m., out of 44 competitors, 6
1 participants emerged out as winners and as a further step Vijay and Troy were
(
T
to play with each other. As both belong to one and the same club, the):'
refused to play against each other and requested for a change of draw.
Deceased-Sunil Gore who was responsible for the draw, however, was not C
ready and willing to change the draw. Deceased-Sunil Gore asked Vijay to
withdraw from the competition and to take back subscription if he did not
want to play against Troy. This led to exchange of hot words. The said
altercation was allegedly being witnessed by the respondent who intervened
and started taking the side of his brother Vijay. The members of the Sai Krupa
Cricket Club intervened in.the said altercation and pacified the situation and D
asked the respondent to leave the playground. It is further alleged that the
respondent left and returned back with a knife and stabbed Sunil Gore on his
abdomen. Due to this, Sunil Gore received stab injuries and collapsed on the
ground. The respondent allegedly threatened all not to come near him and ran'
away with the knife. Sun ii Gore was removed to Cooper Hospital, however, .E
he was declared dead before admission. At about 5.25 p.m. on 7th February
1993 the first infonnant Ravindranath (PW I) went to Jogeshwari Police
Station and lodged the FIR which was reduced into writing vide Exhibit-6 by ·
Uday Bhanu Shanna (PW 12). An offence was registered against the accused
at CR No. 4 7 of 1993 at Jogeshwari Police Station on the basis of the FIR. '
,- Shri Shanna (PW 12) took up the investigation. He visited the hospital. He F
held the !nquest on the dead body and a panchanama to that effect was ·
drawn at Exhibit- I I. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. He
visited the spot and drew the panchanama of the scene of offence at Exhibit- ·
IO in presence of two panchas. After recording !he panchanama of the scene ,
of offence. the investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses. On 8th G
February, 1993 accuse9 Raju Bhaskar Potphode was arrested from his residence.
He was brought to the police station. His clothes were attached under the
seizure panchanama at Exhibit-34 in presence of the two panchas, viz. George
Anthony D'Souze (PW 8) and Pradeep Shankar Hazale (PW 9). There were
blood stains on the clothes of the accused. Clothes were packed, labelled and
H
,-\··

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A sealed under the signatures of panchas. The accused was interrogated in
presence of the panchas. On I Ith February 1993 the accused made a statement
that he would show the knife. His statement was recorded at Exhibit-16. In
pursuance of the said statement, the accused led the investigating officer and
the panchas to the spot at Shivtakdi, Satbawadi. The accused pointed out the
place where a search with the help of torch was carried out and a knife hidden
B in the grass was found. It was seized under a panchanama Exhibit 16-A. Knife
(Article-6) was produced in the trial Court. In the meanwhile, the post-mortem
examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Baban Shripati Shinde
(PW 7). The clothes of the deceased were also attached. The post-mortem
notes are at Exhibit-19. The blood stained clothes of the accused, the knife
C (Article No. 6), sample of blood of deceased and the clothes of the deceased
were sent to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of investigation, the
accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence in the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai.

3. Accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Therefore, trial was
D conducted. In order to establish the accusations 12 witnesses were examined.
It was claimed that PWs I to 4, namely, Uday Gore, Aron Raghunath Paranjape,
Santosh Lad and Girish Modak were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
During trial, however, except PW-2 others resiled from the statements made
during investigation. PW- I Ravindranath Damle partially supported the
E prosecution version but claimed that he had not seen the occurrence. PWs
3 and 4 totally denied to have witnessed the incident. The Trial Court placing
reliance on the evidence of PW-2 recorded conviction and imposed sentence
as aforesaid.

4. Accused-respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. It
F was submitted essentially that the evidence of PW-2 lacks credence and he
is not a reliable witness. Stand of the State on the other hand was that PW-
2 was a close relative of the deceased and there is no reason as to why he
will falsely implicate the accused. The High Court analysed the evidence of
PW-2 in great detail considering the fact that he was a relative of the deceased.
However, it found that evidence of PW-2 to be unreliable and not worthy of
G credence and accordingly directed the acquittal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that there is no
reason for PW-2 to falsely implicate the accused. His presence was but r- .
natural and the aspects highlighted by the High Court about the credibility
H of the evidence of PW-2 are not founded on any rational basis. Learned
·f
STATE OF MAHARASIITRA "· RAJU BHASKAR POTPHODE [PASAYAT,J .] 40 l

counsel for the respondent-accused on the other hand supported the order A
of the High Court.

6. Several factors have been highlighted by the High Court to cast
doubt on the veracity of PW-2' s evidence. Firstly, it noted that his name was
not indicated in the FIR. Furthennore, his conduct at the time of incident
about what he did at that time corrodes the credibility of his version. He B
admitted that he did not inform the deceased that the accused was coming
i with a knife loudly proclaiming that he wanted to harm the deceased.
·\ Additionally, his conduct was quite unnatural because he did not take the
deceased either to the hospital or police station and stated to have been gone
his home directly. Neither did he take him to the hospital which was nearby C
nor inform the police at the police station which was also situated close-by.
The statement was also discrepant as to whether he returned from home after
he had left the deceased in an injured condition. At one stage he stated to
have come after about IO minutes, but in his cross-examination he admitted
that he did not return.
p
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he may have gone
to inform the relatives. Interestingly, none of the relatives came near the spot.
The injured was taken to the hospital by other. High Court found it unnatural
that the PW-2 did not bother to provide medical assistance. He also did not
inform the police. He claimed to have left for his home. Whether he came back
or not is another doubtful question because as noted above he himself E
admitted in cross-examination that he stayed at home. As rightly observed by
the High Court it is quite unnatural conduct on the part of a close relative
that he would leave the relative in a pool of blood not bothering to take him
to the hospital and not to return after having left the spot. Further his conduct
in not informing the police is another relevant factor. F
8. It will be noticed that the Trial Court placed reliance on the so-called
discovery of alleged weapon pursuant to the di~closure by the accused. The
High Court has rightly noticed that the knife was found in an open space and
was clearly visible. Investigating Officer admitted that anybody could have
seen the knife even without much efforf. G
9. The Investigating Officer claimed to have recorded the statement of
this witness on the date of occurrence. But the witness himself stated that
it was not recorded on that date. The High Court found that his presence at
the time of occurrence was highly doubtful. The High Court observed that
H
~-

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A his conduct does not appear to be natural and trustworthy, and, therefore, --/>-
allowed the appeal. Several important aspects were noted by the High Court
to disr.ard the testimony of PW-2. The reasons do not suffer from any
infirmity to warrant inte!"f°erence. The cumulative effect of the infirmities as
noticed by the High Court goes to the root of the matter. In the circumstances,
B we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the
High Court The appeal is without merit and is dismissed.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.

--+