LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, September 24, 2012

Merely because the approver (PW-7) has stated that based on the direction of Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused No. 1), the present appellant (original Accused No. 3) caught hold of the legs of the deceased, in the absence of any motive or intention, mere act of holding his legs that too at the end of the event when original Accused No. 1 throttled his neck by sitting on his abdomen, the appellant (original Accused No. 3) cannot be mulcted with the offence of murder with the aid of Section 34 of IPC, particularly, when the medical evidence for the cause of death is otherwise, namely, due to 100% burns. 18) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt insofar as the present appellant (original Accused No. 3) is concerned and the trial Court committed an error in convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. For the same reasons, the High Court has also erroneously confirmed the said conclusion. Accordingly, both the orders are set aside. The appellant (original Accused No. 3) is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not needed in any other case. The appeal is allowed. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned amicus curiae.


                                     REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                     1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2008




Suresh Sakharam Nangare                           .... Appellant(s)

            Versus

The State of Maharashtra                                .... Respondent(s)


                                      2



                               J U D G M E N T




P.Sathasivam,J.

1)     This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated
04.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 865  of
2001 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court  confirmed  the  order  of
conviction and sentence dated 15.10.1998 passed by the Court  of  Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 816 of 1995 against  the
appellant herein.

2)    Brief facts:
(a)   Rajendra  Mahadeo  Lokhare  (PW-1)-the  complainant,  Kishore  Mahadeo
Lokhare-(original Accused No. 1) and Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhare @  Sanju  (since
deceased) are brothers and were residing at Room No. 11, Gangabhaiya  Chawl,
near K.V.K. High School, Sainath Nagar Road, Ghatkopar (W), Bombay.   Suresh
Sakharam Nangare-(original Accused No. 3) is the friend of A-1  and  Surekha
Mahadeo Lokhare (PW-2) is the wife of A-1.
(b)   Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (A-1) was addicted to  ganja  and  liquor  and
used to ill-treat his wife-Surekha (PW-2) and other members  of  the  family
including his younger brother-Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhare-the deceased.   Due  to
the said behaviour, all the family members except  Kishore  Mahadeo  Lokhare
shifted to Punjab Chawl, Near Tata Fission Pipe Line,  Mulund  (W),  Bombay.
Surekha (PW-2) was very loving and affectionate to Sanjay-the  deceased  and
was used to take care of him as a mother as he was suffering from  deformity
due to typhoid and had also lost his speech.  Sanjay was  also  having  love
and affection as a son towards Surekha  (PW-2)  and  he  used  to  intervene
whenever his elder brother assaulted  his  wife-Surekha  and  children.   On
this account, Kishore developed enmity against Sanjay and wanted to get  rid
of him.
(c)   On 02.03.1995, Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare came to the house  of  Rajendra
Mahadeo Lokhare (PW-1) and persuaded him to send  Sanjay  to  his  house  at
Ghatkopar on the pretext of performing some Pooja.  On the same day, in  the
afternoon, Sanjay left for his elder brother’s home informing that  he  will
return the same night but he did not return.  On 03.03.1995, at about  09:30
hrs, Rajendra Mahadeo Lokhare (PW-1) visited his elder  brother’s  house  in
search of Sanjay but he returned after  finding  that  Kishore  was  present
there.
(d)   On the very same day, i.e., on 03.03.1995, between 10:30 pm. to  11:00
p.m., PW-1 was informed by two residents of Ghatkopar at his residence  that
his younger brother-Sanjay has expired due to burn injuries.    PW-1  lodged
an FIR against  his  elder  brother-Kishore  Mahadeo  Lokhare  at  Ghatkopar
Police Station which was registered as CR No. 76/1995.
(e)   After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against  3  persons,
namely, Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare, Shabbir Fariyad Khan  and  Suresh  Sakharam
Nangare for their involvement in the death of Sanjay Mahadeo  Lokhare.   The
case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered  as  Sessions  Case
No. 816 of 1995 and charges were framed against the  accused  persons  under
Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860
(in short ‘the IPC’).
(f)   During trial before  the  Court  of  Sessions,  Shabbir  Fariyad  Khan
turned approver and by impugned judgment and  order  dated  15.10.1998,  the
Additional Sessions Judge  convicted  Kishore  Mahadeo  Lokhare  and  Suresh
Sakharam Nangare (original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively) under  Section
302 read with Section 34 of  IPC  and  sentenced  them  to  suffer  rigorous
imprisonment (RI) for life.  The accused persons were also  convicted  under
Section 201 read with Section  34  IPC  and  sentenced  to  suffer  rigorous
imprisonment (RI) for 3 years each alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each,  in
default, to further undergo RI for 6 months each and the sentences  were  to
run concurrently.
(g)   Being aggrieved, Suresh Sakharam  Nangare  preferred  Criminal  Appeal
No. 865  of  2001  before  the  High  Court.   By  impugned  judgment  dated
04.08.2006, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed  the  appeal  and
confirmed the conviction and sentence  passed  by  the  Additional  Sessions
Judge, Greater Bombay.
(h)   Aggrieved by the said  judgment,  the  appellant  has  preferred  this
appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
3)    Heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned amicus curiae  for  the  appellant-
accused and Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
4)     Ms.  Aishwarya  Bhati,  learned  amicus  curiae  appearing  for   the
appellant raised the following contentions:
     i) There is no direct evidence showing the complicity of the appellant-
        accused and he has been convicted on the sole evidence  of  Shabbir
        Fariyad  Khan  (PW-7),  the  approver,  as  to  his  presence   and
        participation in the crime.
    ii) It will not be safe to rely on the sole testimony  of  PW-7  -  the
        approver which lacks corroboration.
   iii) Even if the evidence of PW-7 - the approver is accepted,  still  it
        cannot be said that the appellant-accused shared  common  intention
        with Kishore- original accused No.1 to commit  the  murder  of  his
        younger brother-Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhare.
    iv) The medical evidence and the post mortem  report  (Exh.21)  clearly
        indicates that the victim did not die due to assault but the  cause
        of death is due to 100% burns which was confirmed after receipt  of
        the C.A.’s report.
With these contentions, learned amicus curiae contended that the  conviction
and sentence insofar as the appellant-original Accused No.3, deserves to  be
set aside.
5)    On the other hand, Mr.  Sushil  Karanjkar,  learned  counsel  for  the
respondent-State, submitted that on a conjoint reading of the statements  of
the prosecution witnesses including  that  of  PW-7-original  accused  No.2,
(Approver) by applying the provisions of  Section  34  of  IPC,  the  courts
below  were  justified  in  convicting  the  present  appellant  along  with
original accused No.1 under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
6)    We have carefully considered the rival  contentions  and  perused  all
the materials including oral and documentary evidence.
7)    It is not  in  dispute  that  originally,  3  persons,  viz.,  Kishore
Mahadeo Lokhare, Shabbir Fariyad  Khan  and  Suresh  Sakharam  Nangare  were
implicated as A-1 to A-3 respectively for the  cause  of  death  of  Sanjay.
During the course of trial, Shabbir Fariyad Khan (A-2) turned  approver  and
he was examined as PW-7.  Based on the materials led in by the  prosecution,
the trial Court convicted Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare  (original  Accused  No.1)
and Suresh Sakharam Nangare (original Accused No. 3) - the appellant  herein
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC  and  sentenced  them  to  suffer
rigorous imprisonment for life.  In addition to the  same,  both  were  also
convicted under Section 201 read  with  Section  34  IPC  and  sentenced  to
suffer R.I. for 3 years each along with a  fine  of  Rs.  2,000/-  each,  in
default, to further undergo R.I. for 6 months each.  Further, it is  not  in
dispute  that  Kishore  Mahadeo  Lokhare-(original  Accused  No.1)  has  not
appealed against his conviction and sentence, hence, we are  concerned  only
with Suresh Sakharam Nangare (original  Accused  No.  3)  -   the  appellant
herein.
8)    The first witness examined by the  prosecution  was  Rajendra  Mahadeo
Lokhare (PW-1), who deposed that the appellant herein (original Accused  No.
3) and Shabbir Fariyad Khan-Approver (original Accused No. 2)  came  to  his
house and told him that Sanjay has committed suicide by setting  himself  on
fire.  His evidence relating to the cause  of  death  by  suicide  has  been
negatived by the evidence of Dr. Balkrishna (PW-10) who conducted  the  post
mortem.  When a specific question was put to  the  doctor  by  pointing  out
that whether a person like Sanjay, who was having flexed  fingers  would  be
in a position to light a match stick or lift a can containing  Kerosene,  he
specifically  negatived  the  same  and  confirmed  that  all  the  injuries
suffered by the victim were ante mortem.   He  also  pointed  out  that  the
death was due to 100% burns.  We will discuss the  evidence  of  doctor  and
his report in the later part of our order.  The  above  deposition  of  PW-1
shows that he has not implicated the appellant herein (original Accused  No.
3) in the crime.
9)    Surekha - wife of Kishore (original Accused No. 1) was examined as PW-
2.  She narrated about the conduct of her husband as well as the  disability
of the deceased.  According to her, the deceased was  unable  to  speak  and
both his hands were  disabled  and  he  had  flexed  fingers.   She  further
explained that when Sanju was  young,  he  had  suffered  from  Typhoid  and
during that, he had an attack due to which he lost his power of  speech  and
became disabled.  Since he was unable to take bath and to wear  his  clothes
etc., she used to hold him.  She also explained  about  the  habits  of  her
husband (original Accused No. 1) and complained  that  he  was  addicted  to
Ganja and liquor and used to beat her and her children because of which  she
used to go to her parents house.   In  the  entire  evidence,  she  has  not
implicated the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3).
10)   In addition to  the  same,  the  prosecution  has  also  examined  two
neighbours – Chandrakant  as  PW-3  and  Durgavati  Ashok  Thakur  as  PW-4.
Though they explained about the conduct and  character  of  Kishore  Mahadeo
Lokhare (original Accused No. 1) and  his  brother,  there  is  not  even  a
whisper about the role of the appellant herein  in  the  commission  of  the
crime.
11)   The only person, who named the appellant herein (original Accused  No.
3), is Kumari Subhadra Dhondibhau Tagad (PW-5).  She deposed that she  knows
all the accused persons.  She narrated that on  03.03.1995,  at  about  6:45
p.m., when she was standing outside her house,  she  saw  the  deceased  and
Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused No. 1) in their house.   At  about
07:45 p.m., on that day, when she was sitting near the door  of  her  house,
she noticed Suresh Sakharam Nangare- appellant herein (original Accused  No.
3) coming out of the house of Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused  No.
1) in a frightened state.  He was looking here and  there  and,  thereafter,
he left the place.  She identified the present appellant in the Court.   She
further deposed that  she  heard  the  shouts  of  Kishore  Mahadeo  Lokhare
(original Accused No. 1) as “Sanjune Jalun Ghetale”  i.e.,  “Sanju  has  set
himself on fire”.  She also  deposed  that  she  made  a  statement  to  the
police.  Like PWs 3 and 4, she was also residing next to the house  of  A-1.

12)   A perusal  of  the  evidence  of  PW-5  shows  that  at  the  time  of
occurrence, the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3) was coming out  of
the house of A-1 in  a  frightened  state  of  mind.   She  has  not  stated
anything further.
13)   The only evidence, based on  which  the  present  appellant  (original
Accused No. 3) was convicted under Section 34 IPC, is  of  approver  (PW-7),
who was originally Accused No.2.  In the examination, he has mentioned  that
Kishore (A-1) has two brothers, viz., Rajendra Mahadeo  Lokhare  (PW-1)  and
Sanjay (deceased).  He also stated that  Sanjay  was  dumb  and  had  flexed
fingers and he was unable to lift anything.  He  further  narrated  that  on
03.03.1995, at about 12 noon, Kishore (original Accused No. 1) met him  near
K.V.K. School.  At that time, Kishore was under  the  influence  of  alcohol
and requested him to come to his place in the evening.  At  about  7.30-7.45
p.m., he went to his house.  As soon as he reached the house of A-1,  Suresh
Sakharam Nangre - the present appellant (original Accused No. 3)  also  came
there.  There were 2 rooms in the house of A-1.  At that time, the  deceased
was present in the inner room.  He  along  with  Kishore  (A-1)  and  Suresh
(appellant herein) was sitting in the first room.  At that  time,  A-1  took
out ganja and all of them smoked it.  Thereafter, A-1 went inside the  inner
room where Sanjay was sitting.  After some  time,  he  heard  the  sound  of
assault.  Then A-1 called him and the present  appellant  (original  Accused
No. 3) inside the said room.  As soon as  they  went  inside,  they  noticed
that Sanjay was lying on the floor and A-1 was sitting on  his  abdomen  and
was holding his neck with one hand and fisting with the other  hand  on  his
chest and both sides  of  the  stomach.   A-1  asked  him  and  the  present
appellant (original  Accused  No.  3)  to  hold  Sanjay.   Accordingly,  the
appellant herein caught  hold  of  the  legs  of  Sanjay.   Thereafter,  A-1
removed his hands from the throat of Sanjay and he  (PW-7)  caught  hold  of
the throat of Sanjay.  When Sanjay had stopped his movements, A-1  got  down
from his abdomen.  Thereafter, A-1 abused them and  told  them  to  go  out.
However, PW-7 did not leave that place and saw A-1 lifting kerosene can  and
pouring it on the person of Sanjay, who was lying on the floor.   On  seeing
this, he ran away from the place to  his  house.   Even  if  we  accept  the
evidence of PW-7  (original Accused No. 2), who turned  approver,  the  role
allotted to the present appellant was that of only holding the legs  of  the
deceased as directed by A-1.  It should be noted that  A-1  was  sitting  on
his abdomen and was holding his neck with one hand and was also fisting  his
chest with the other hand and after fulfilling the  work,  at  the  end,  he
directed the other two accused persons to catch hold  of  the  legs  of  the
deceased.  Beyond this, there is no role assigned to the present  appellant.

14)   Since the conviction of the appellant is based only with  the  aid  of
Section 34 of IPC, it is useful to refer the same:
      “34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention –
      When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance  of  the
      common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for  that  act
      in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”


A reading of the above provision makes it clear that to  apply  Section  34,
apart from the fact that there should be two or more  accused,  two  factors
must be  established:  (i)  common  intention,  and  (ii)  participation  of
accused in the commission of an offence.  It further  makes  clear  that  if
common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the  individual
accused, Section 34 will be attracted as essentially it  involves  vicarious
liability but if participation of the accused in the  crime  is  proved  and
common intention is absent, Section 34 cannot be invoked.  In  other  words,
it requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-supposes prior  concert,  therefore,
there must be prior meeting of minds.
15)   We have already referred to the  evidence  of  prosecution  witnesses.
Nobody has implicated the present appellant except the  statements  made  by
PW-5 and PW-7 (the approver).  We are satisfied that absolutely there is  no
material from  the  side  of  the  prosecution  to  show  that  the  present
appellant had any common  intention  to  eliminate  the  deceased,  who  was
physically disabled.  The only adverse thing against the  present  appellant
is that he used to associate with A-1 for smoking Ganja.  In the absence  of
common intention, we are of the view that convicting the appellant with  the
aid of Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained.
16)   The other important circumstance which is in favour of  the  appellant
herein is the evidence of the doctor (PW-10) who conducted the post  mortem.
 In his evidence, PW-10 has stated that on 04.03.1995, at about 08:15  a.m.,
the dead body of one Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhar was brought  by  the  police  for
post mortem.  He started  the  examination  at  2  p.m.  and  the  same  was
concluded at 3 p.m.  According to  him,  it  was  a  burnt  body,  averagely
nourished with  presence  of  rigor  mortis  in  muscles.   His  tongue  was
protruding outside and surface wounds and injuries were 100% superficial  to
deep burns.  In his opinion, the cause of the death was  due  to  100%  burn
injuries.  He also issued the post  mortem  certificate  which  is  Exh.  21
wherein he opined that the death occurred due to 100% burns and not  because
of assault.  The categorical evidence and  the  opinion  of  PW-10  for  the
cause of the death of Sanjay make it  clear  that  the  appellant  herein  –
original Accused No. 3 has nothing to do with the same  since  the  evidence
brought in shows that it was Kishore Mahadeo  Lokhare  –  (original  Accused
No. 1) who took Sanjay to the other room where he burnt him to death.   This
important aspect has not been considered by the trial Court as  well  as  by
the High Court.
17)   On appreciation of the entire  material,  we  have  already  concluded
that the present appellant had no role in the  criminal  conspiracy  and  no
motive to kill the deceased.   On  the  other  hand,  the  evidence  led  in
clearly implicates Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare – (original  Accused  No.  1)  in
all aspects including motive and the manner  of  causing  death  by  litting
fire.  Apart from all the evidence led in  by  the  prosecution,  the  above
position is clear from the evidence of the Doctor (PW-10)  –  who  conducted
the post mortem and his  opinion  for  the  cause  of  the  death.    Merely
because the approver (PW-7) has  stated  that  based  on  the  direction  of
Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused  No.  1),  the  present  appellant
(original Accused No. 3) caught hold of the legs of  the  deceased,  in  the
absence of any motive or intention, mere act of holding his  legs  that  too
at the end of the event when original Accused No. 1 throttled  his  neck  by
sitting on his abdomen, the appellant (original Accused  No.  3)  cannot  be
mulcted with the offence of murder with  the  aid  of  Section  34  of  IPC,
particularly,  when  the  medical  evidence  for  the  cause  of  death   is
otherwise, namely, due to 100% burns.
18)   In the light of the above discussion, we  hold  that  the  prosecution
failed to establish the guilt insofar as  the  present  appellant  (original
Accused No. 3) is concerned and  the  trial  Court  committed  an  error  in
convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34  of  IPC  and
sentencing him to imprisonment for life.  For the  same  reasons,  the  High
Court has also erroneously  confirmed  the  said  conclusion.   Accordingly,
both the orders are set aside.  The appellant (original Accused  No.  3)  is
ordered to be released forthwith if he is not  needed  in  any  other  case.
The appeal is allowed.  We record our appreciation for the  able  assistance
rendered by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned amicus curiae.

                                  ………….…………………………J.


                                       (P. SATHASIVAM)












                                    ………….…………………………J.


                                      (RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 21, 2012.












|                      |

|                     |                      |                     |



   -----------------------
14