http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  95 of 2008

PETITIONER: Vijay Shankar Shinde & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3394 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.    Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by a  Division Bench of Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal  filed by the appellants who were convicted by learned  Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, for offences punishable  under Sections 302, 307, 452 read with Section 34 of the  Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short \021IPC\022).  For the first two  offences each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life  and to pay a fine with default stipulation.  For the offence  relatable to Section 452 IPC, each was sentenced to undergo  imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine with default  stipulation.

3.      Prosecution case which led to the trial of the appellants  was as follows:

    There was family feud between the family of the accused  and the family of the complainant who were close relations.   Suits are filed and suits were pending.  On 10.10.1996,  around 12.00 p.m. Dattatraya one of the injured persons was  assaulted by the accused persons and on being stopped by  mother-in-law of Dattatraya accused ran away.  Thereafter  Tanaji (hereinafter referred to as deceased) came home and  took Dattatraya by rickshaw towards hospital.  They were  accosted at Gandhi Chowk by accused persons who broke the  glass of rickshaw, turned down the rickshaw, pulled out the  victims and assaulted them.  This assault was witnessed by  Jayashri, wife of Tanaji.  She, therefore, filed a complaint  before the police.  Investigation was started and on completion  of investigation, the accused persons were charged of having  committed murder of the deceased Tanaji and grievous hurt to  Dattatraya.                 4.      In order to establish its version prosecution examined 18  witnesses. PWs. 11, 12 and 13 were stated to be eye-witnesses  in addition to PW9 who also claimed to have witnessed a part  of the incidence.     5.      The Trial Court accepted the prosecution version and  held that the evidence of PWs. 11, 12 and 13 clearly establish  the prosecution version. It was noted that PW 12 was injured  in the incident.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

6.      Before the High Court it was submitted that there were  contradictions and omissions falsifying the prosecution  version.  The High Court did not accept the version and  upheld the conviction and maintained their sentence. 7.      In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the  appellants submitted that PW\022s 9 presence at the spot appears  to be doubtful and in fact the Trial Court noted that she had  not seen the actual incident but after learning about the  occurrence she came to the place and her husband told her  that it was the accused who had beaten him.  It is also  submitted that PW11 had reason to falsely implicate the  accused persons.  Learned counsel for the respondent-State  on the other hand supported the judgment of the Trial Court  as well as the High Court.         

8.      Though the Trial Court observed that PWs 9 and 11 may  have tried to exaggerate because former was the widow and  latter was injured victim, the evidence of PWs 12 and 13  establish the prosecution version.    9.   The Trial Court was not justified in holding that because  PW11 was an injured witness he may have reason to falsely  implicate the accused. However, as rightly observed by the  Trial Court and the High Court, the evidence of PWs 12 and 13  does not suffer from any deficiency.  PWs 11, 12 and 13 were  cross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be  elicited to destroy the credibility of their version.  As a matter  of fact, the evidence of injured person who is examined as a  witness lends more credence, because normally he would not  falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual  assailant.                       10.     The Trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly  placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and as  noted above their evidence was clear and cogent.     11.     That being so, the impugned judgment of the High Court  does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.    12.     The appeal fails and is dismissed.