REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1609 OF 2007

Ram Maruthi Pawar  ....Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents

(With Criminal Appeal No.1603 of 2007)

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

1. These two appeals are inter-linked and are directed against a common

judgment of the Bombay High Court. Of the two appeals before the High

Court,  one was filed by Nathu Keru Bhatre (hereinafter  described as ‘A-

12’). The other appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the

acquittal of one Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan (hereinafter referred to as ‘A1’)

and the appellant Ram Maruti Pawar (hereinafter described as ‘A14). In  all,

1

15 accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short

‘IPC’).  The  trial  court  convicted  A12  while  directing  acquittal  of  other

accused  persons.  The  State's  appeal  before  the  High  Court  related  to

accused nos. 1 and 14. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State

qua  Ram  Maruthi  Pawar  A14  while  upholding  the  acquittal  so  far  as

Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan (A1) is concerned.  

2. Though learned counsel for the appellant urged many points, we do

not feel it  necessary to go into them in detail.  There are some disturbing

features which have been noticed. It appears that during the course of trial,

learned prosecutor appearing for the State conceded before the trial court

that  it  was  not  possible  to  say  that  any offence  has  been  committed  by

accused Nos.2 to 15 and they can be immediately set at liberty. The trial

recorded the concession in the following words:

“At the very outset of this arguments, Shri Pandey submitted  that  after  critical  examination  of  the prosecution evidence, it  is  not possible to say that any offence  has  been  committed  by  accused Nos.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,ll,l2,l3,14 and 15 and they can be immediately  set  at  liberty.  All  that  time  prosecution could  alleged,  against  these  accused  is  that  they  had produced  sticks  from  their  houses  after  execution  of

2

certain  Panchanamas filed  at  Exhs.  60 to  64  but  more production  of a stick from the house  is  not  enough to implicate them in the murders that had taken place unless any further corroboration was there to indicate that they had really taken part in the murderous assault. As there is no evidence whatsoever to show that these persons had belabored  the  deceased,  it  was  but  natural  for  Shri Pandey  to  submit  that  he  has  no  comment  to  make against them.”

3. Nevertheless  the  trial  court  convicted  A12  which  was  challenged

before the High Court. It is also interesting to note that before recording the

concession of learned counsel for the prosecution, the High Court noted that

the evidence of Narayan Pandy Ghungre (PW9) as regards  the particular

part  played  by accused Nos.2  and 14  are  relevant.  It  has  been noted  as

follows:

“23.           xxx xxx xxx

But PW9 Narayan says that he was able to identify 2/3 persons that were rushing at him with some instruments in  their  hands  and  accordingly  he  says  that  accused Nos.12  and  14  were  these  persons  who  were  chasing them.

24. It is on the basis of the statement of PW9 Narayan that the particular part played by accused Nos.12 and 14

3

in  the  commission  of  the  crime  of  murder  has  been sought  to  be  established  by  the  prosecution,  while maintaining  that  so  far  as  the  other  accused  are concerned,  there  is  no evidence whatsoever to connect them with the crime."

4. The High Court's judgment is equally baffling. The High Court noted

that  the  identification  parade  took  place  after  three  months  when  PW9

identified accused Nos.12 and 14. The High Court in this context noted as

follows:

“PW9 further states that the woman then directed her  attention  to  the  witness  and told  the  villagers  that Narayan  and  Sitaram  were  also  thieves.  Then  2/3 villagers rushed at Narayan, asked Sitaram to come down from the three immediately. Accordingly, Sitaram came down  and  2/3  Arsons  who  had  rushed  on  them were identified as accused Nos.12 and 14. He stated that in the parade that took place after three months, he identified the accused Nos.12 and 14.”

5. But  after  indicating  some  reasons,  the  High  Court  noted  that  the

evidence regarding the parade is to be rejected. The High Court also noted

the fact that before the police PW9 did not say anything about his being an

4

eyewitness.  But High Court went on to hold that just because he has given

different  versions  at  different  point  of  time,  his  evidence  cannot  be

discarded  and  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  is  not  an  eye-witness.  The

conclusions of the High Court are certainly not defensible. It is to be noted

that PW9 Narayan's evidence is full of contradictions.  

6. That  being  so,  the  High  Court  was  not  justified,  apart  from other

important  aspects  highlighted  above,  in  convicting  the  appellants.   The

appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The conviction as  recorded by

the trial court and the High Court, so far as Nathu Keru is concerned and the

conviction as recorded by the High Court so far as Ram Maruthi Pawar is

concerned,  are  set  aside.  The  accused  appellants  are  acquitted  of  the

charges. They are to be set at liberty and released forthwith from custody

unless required to be in custody in any other case.

....................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……............................................J. (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

5

……............................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi; April 15, 2009

6