Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 1981. Case: Ramesh Maruti Patil Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 1981 |
| Judges | M. M. Punchhi , J. and S. C. Agrawal , J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 299; Evidence Act (1 of 1872) - Section 3 |
| Citation | 1994 CriLJ 8 |
| Judgement Date | May 01, 1992 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
: This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 20-2-1981 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1974.
-
For the view we are taking, it would not be necessary to detail out the entire case. It would be enough to mention that the sole appellant herein, named Ramesh Maruti Patil, along with eight others stood trial under S. 302/323 read with S.149, IPC etc, for causing the death of one Moti Ram and causing injuries to three others on the complainant side. In the side of the appellant four accused were stated to have suffered injuries during the occurrence which took place on March 3, 1974 in front of the house of the deceased Moti Ram. In the First Information Report lodged by Savalaram, P.W.9 the father of the deceased, it was Bhanudas Gajanam Patil co-accused who was ascribed the sole fatal injury on the deceased. The First Information Report was otherwise silent about the remaining five injuries on the deceased as well as those caused to the PWs. Similarly the FIR was also silent about the injuries found on the persons of four accused persons. The Court of Session on weighing the prosecution version and the cross versional defence recorded a finding that the parties had a free fight and therefore the prosecution case could not be relied upon to convict the accused persons. An additional factor which weighed with the Court was that the version given in the FIR about the sole fatal injury being caused by Bhanudas Gajanam Patil was deviated from at the trial since all the prosecution witnesses ascribed that fatal injury to Ramesh Maruti Patil, the present appellant herein. Otherwise also the prosecution case was held not reliable. Accordingly, the Court of Session recorded an order of acquittal which gave rise to an appeal by the State to the High Court. The High Court maintained the acquittal of eight co-accused, but convicted the appellant relying on the testimony of witnesses at the trial holding the appellant guilty for causing the sole fatal injury on the person of the deceased. The exercise in the instant appeal thus is whether it would be safe to maintain this conviction recorded under S. 304, Part II, IPC where under the appellant has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.
-
We have heard learned counsel. We are mindful of the position that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and has a limited use. It is also not an encyclopaedia of the prosecution case...
To continue reading
Request your trial