{"id":213181,"date":"2008-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-12T17:50:36","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T12:20:36","slug":"sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna … vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna … vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: P G Singhvi<\/div>\n
Bench: G.P. Mathur, G.S. Singhvi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  579 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nSattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/01\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nG.P. Mathur & G.S. Singhvi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
Per G.S. Singhvi J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of
\nthe Bombay High Court, which upheld the conviction of the appellant
\nunder Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to
\nhim by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case
\nNo.28\/1995.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 1.10.1994, PW1 Dr. Rasiklal Dwarkadas Dani, a resident of
\nPratap Building 173, Dadiseth Agyari Lane, Mumbai, telephonically
\ninformed Assistant Police Inspector (API), PW14 R.R. Gaekwad of
\nPolice Station Tilak Nagar that a man, who was later on, identified as
\nSatish, was lying on the right side of the stairs of the building in a pool
\nof blood.  API Gaekwad reached the spot and removed that person to
\nG.T. Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.  PW14 recorded
\nthe information given by Dr. Dani as Ex.P6 and treated the same as
\nFIR.  He then handed over the investigation to PW13 Shamsherkhan
\nWazirkhan Pathan, who was acting as night Police Inspector at L.T.
\nMarg Police Station.  The latter prepared Panchnama of the dead body.
\nFrom the papers found in the pocket of the clothes of the deceased,
\nthe police contacted his brother, PW3 Rajaiyya Pochyya Bandapalli on
\n1.10.1994 itself and recorded his statement.  After two days, the
\nappellant and one Devabhuma Badapatti were arrested.  On the day of
\nhis arrest i.e. 3.10.1994, the appellant is said to have made a
\nstatement and then took the police to Room No.45 of the third floor of
\nthe building known as Ganesh Bhuvan Dadiseth Agyari Lane, Mumbai
\nand got recovered his pant and shirt which are said to be having stains
\nof blood.  On 4.10.1994, the appellant was medically examined by
\nPW10 Shiv Narain Daund, who found that the thumb and index finger
\nof the appellants right hand had been injured sometime back.  On the
\nnext day i.e., 5.10.1994, the appellant took the police to PW7 Mohd.
\nFarid Abdul Gani, who claims to have sold the handkerchief, which was
\nfound near the body of the deceased.  On 6.10.1994, the appellant is
\nsaid to have given some more information to the police and got
\nrecovered half blade (marked as Article 7) which was lying under the
\nwooden platform in front of Ganesh Bhuvan.   The clothes of the
\ndeceased, the pant and shirt belonging to the appellant and blade
\nwere sent for chemical examination. As per the Chemical Examiners
\nReport, the clothes of the deceased were having human blood of O
\ngroup.  The pant and shirt, allegedly recovered at the instance of the
\nappellant also had blood stains, but it could not be established whether
\nthe same was human blood of O group.  The stain on the blade was
\nalso said to be of human blood but its identity could not be established
\nby the chemical examiner.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter completing the investigation, the police submitted challan
\nin the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate who committed the case to
\nthe Court of the Sessions, Greater Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Rasiklal Dwarkadas Dani,
\nPW2 Dinesh Dubey, with whom Devabhuma Badapatti is said to have
\nworked till September 1994, PW3 Rajjaiyya (brother of the deceased),
\nPW4 Hari Oval and PW8 Ranjit Bishram Jaiswal, who acted as panches
\nfor recovery of the clothes from Room No.45 of Ganesh Bhuvan, PW5
\nSalim Sheikh, who acted as panch for recovery of half blade beneath
\nwooden board in front of Ganesh Bhuvan, PW6 Shankar Shripati
\nUlalkar, who was engaged in the work of shaving and cutting hair
\noutside shop No.1 of Ganesh Bhuvan, Dadiseth Agyari Lane,   PW7
\nMohd. Farid Abdul Gani, who claims to have sold the handkerchief to
\nthe appellant, PW9 Balu Shivram Nalwada, who is said to have
\nwitnessed the sale of handkerchief by PW7 to the appellant, PW10
\nShivraj Narayan Daund, who examined the appellant on 4.10.1994,
\nPW11 Raju Chandu Poojari, who claims to have seen the accused
\npersons with the deceased on the night of the incident i.e. 30.9.1994,
\nPW12 Dr. Avinash Janardan Pujari, who performed the autopsy on the
\ndead body, PW13 PI, Shamsherkhan Vazirkhan Pathan and PW14 API,
\nR.R. Gaikwad.  Thereafter, the statements of the appellant and
\nDevabhuma Badapatti were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  Both
\nof them denied having committed the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe motive of the crime, as projected by the prosecution, was
\nthat the appellant was having illicit relation with Lakshmi  wife of the
\ndeceased and Devabhuma Badpatti was having animosity with the
\nlatter because of the alleged murder of his father.  The prosecution
\nrelied on the circumstantial evidence of last scene, recovery of blood
\nstained pant and shirt from Room No.45, Ganesh Bhuvan Building,
\nblood stained half blade and handkerchief found near the body of the
\ndeceased to prove the appellants involvement in the crime.
\n\tThe learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the
\nprosecutions theory regarding motive but relied on the circumstantial
\nevidence and convicted both the accused under Section 302 read with
\nSection 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment.  On
\nappeal, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction of
\nthe appellant and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment
\nawarded to him, but acquitted Devabhuma Badpatti on the premise
\nthat there was no evidence to show that he was a party to the crime.
\n\tShri Ajit Kumar Pande assailed the findings recorded by the
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, which as mentioned, were
\nconfirmed by the High Court by arguing that the entire story was
\nfabricated by the police to falsely implicate the appellant.  Learned
\ncounsel invited our attention to the serious discrepancies in the
\nstatement of PW 11, Raju Poojari, who claims to have seen the
\nappellant with the deceased at 10.45 p.m. on 30th September 1994
\nand argued that the deliberate attempt made by the witness to conceal
\nthe fact that he was engaged in the business of illicit liquor and was
\narrested by the police in connection with the said business should have
\nbeen treated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and High Court
\nsufficient for discarding his testimony.  Shri Pande then argued that
\nthe recovery of the blood stained pant and shirt from Room No.45 of
\nGanesh Bhuvan and half blade from under the wooden board in front
\nof Ganesh Bhuvan, are highly suspicious and no credence should
\nhave been given to such recoveries for holding the appellant guilty of
\nserious offence like murder because they were not proved to be
\nstained with human blood of O group.  He lastly argued that version
\nof PW7 Mohd. Gani regarding sale of handkerchief to the appellant is
\nunbelievable because there was nothing from which he could identify
\nthe handkerchief allegedly sold more than one month before the
\nalleged murder. Shri Sushil Karanjakar, learned counsel for the State
\nsupported the judgment under challenge and argued that the High
\nCourt rightly upheld the conviction of the appellant and the sentence
\nawarded to him.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have thoughtfully considered the entire matter.  It is settled
\nlaw that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also
\nby circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence.  The
\nCourt can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts
\nand circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the
\ninnocence of the accused.  Of course, the circumstances from which an
\ninference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable
\ndoubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
\nfact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
\n\tIn Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC
\n343], which is one of the earliest decisions on the subject, this court
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is
\nof a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
\nthe conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
\ninstance be fully established and all the facts so
\nestablished should be consistent only with the hypothesis
\nof the guilt of the accused.  Again, the circumstances
\nshould be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they
\nshould be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
\nproposed to be proved.  In other words, there must be a
\nchain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
\nreasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
\ninnocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
\nthat within all human probability the act must have been
\ndone by the accused.<\/p>\n
\tIn Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1989) Supp (2) SCC
\n706], this court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial
\nevidence, the following tests must be satisfied:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tthe circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
\nsought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;\n<\/p>\n
(2) \tthose circumstances should be of a definite tendency
\nunerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tthe circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a
\nchain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion
\nthat within all human probability the crime was committed by
\nthe accused and none else; and<\/p>\n
(4)\tthe circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
\nmust be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
\nhypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such
\nevidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
\naccused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.<\/p>\n
\tIn Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> [(1984) 4
\nSCC 116], it was held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove
\nthat the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set
\nup by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity
\nor lacuna in the prosecution case.  The Court then proceeded to
\nindicate the conditions which must be fully established before
\nconviction can be based on circumstantial evidence.  These are:
\n(1)\tthe circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
\ndrawn should be fully established.  The circumstances concerned must
\nor should and not may be established;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tthe facts so established should be consistent only with the
\nhypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not
\nbe explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is
\nguilty;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tthe circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
\ntendency;\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tthey should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
\nbe proved; and<\/p>\n
(5)\tthere must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
\nany reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
\ninnocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability
\nthe act must have been done by the accused.<\/p>\n
\tIn State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava<\/a> [(1992) 2 SCC 86], it
\nwas pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating
\ncircumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably
\ncapable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be
\naccepted.  It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon
\nmust be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect
\nof all the facts so established must be consistent only with the
\nhypothesis of guilt.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above noted propositions have been reiterated in Bodhraj
\nalias Bodha and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir<\/a> [(2002) 8
\nSCC 45]; Bharat vs. State of M.P.<\/a> [(2003) 3 SCC 106]; Jaswant Gir vs.
\nState of Punjab [(2005) 12 SCC 438]; Reddy Sampath Kumar vs.
\nState of A.P. [(2005) 7 SCC 603]; Deepak Chandrakant Patil vs. State
\nof Maharashtra<\/a> [(2006) 10 SCC 151]; Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy
\nand Another vs. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172] and State of Goa
\nvs. Sanjay Thakran and Another<\/a> [(2007) 3 SCC 755].
\n\tIn Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Another vs. State of A.P.
\n[(2006) 10 SCC 172], this Court while reiterating the settled legal
\nposition, observed:\n<\/p>\n
It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction
\non circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish
\nall the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable
\nand clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved
\nmust form such a chain of events as would permit no
\nconclusion other than one of guilt of the accused.  The
\ncircumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis.  It is
\nalso well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be,
\ncannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take
\nutmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the
\nbasis of the circumstantial evidence.  <\/p>\n
      At this stage, we also deem it proper to observe that in exercise
\nof power under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court will be
\nextremely loath to upset the judgment of conviction which is confirmed
\nin appeal.  However, if it is found that the appreciation of evidence in a
\ncase, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, is vitiated by
\nserious errors and on that account miscarriage of justice has been
\noccasioned, then the Court will certainly interfere even with the
\nconcurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court
\nBharat vs. State of M.P.<\/a> [(2003) 3 SCC 106].\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the light of the above, we shall now consider whether in the
\npresent case the prosecution succeeded in establishing the chain of
\ncircumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the appellant
\nhad committed the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\tA careful reading of the judgments of the Additional Sessions
\nJudge and High Court shows that the conviction of the appellant was
\nbased on the following circumstances:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tthat both the accused were with the deceased when he was last
\nseen alive in the night of 30\/9\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tthe accused had residence in the vicinity of the place where the
\ninjured was found while the injured did not reside in the vicinity.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\taccused No.1 had an injury which could be caused by user of the
\nblade (Art.7) and had knowledge where the piece of blade could be
\nfound by the Police.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tthere was human blood on the piece of blade and stains of
\nhuman blood on the clothes of accused No.1 were not explained to be
\nthe stains of blood of his own.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tthe handkerchief purchased by accused No.1 was found near the
\ninjured with stains of blood of the injured indicative of presence of
\naccused No.1 in the vicinity after the injured had sustained bleeding
\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tAccused No.2 used to be with accused No.1 many times and had
\nbeen sleeping at the place of accused No.1 for three nights and
\naccused No.2 had borrowed Rs.300\/- in the night of 30th September,
\n1994 and<\/p>\n
(vii)\t  they were caught when they were together.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe shall first scrutinize the evidence of last scene, which is in
\nthe form of statement of PW11 Raju Poojari.  In the first instance, the
\nwitness denied his acquaintance with Babu Poojari but then
\nvolunteered to admit that he knew the latter.   He gave out that he
\nwas residing in a temporary shed at Sonapur, Chandanwadi, which
\nwas used as tailoring shop.  Later on, he made an improvement by
\nsaying that he was doing work at the tailoring shop.  According to him
\nboth the accused had passed in front of the shop on 30th September,
\n1994 at 10.45 p.m.  He demonstrated his acquaintance with both the
\naccused by saying that they used to come to the tailoring shop.  When
\ntwo photographs of the deceased (marked as Article 8) were shown to
\nhim, PW11 stated that the said person had come with the accused for
\ngetting their clothes stitched from the shop.  He expressed his
\nignorance about the time when they came to the shop and then stated
\nthat they came at 10.30 p.m. 2-4 days before the police came to make
\nenquiries from him.  According to PW11 his signatures were obtained
\nat the police station but nothing was read out to him.  He then stated
\nthat something was read out at the police station ten days back when
\nhe was called there and was shown photographs (marked as Article 8).
\nHe admitted the existence of a liquor shop near the tailoring shop, but
\ngave out that the same was owned by one John.  He denied his
\ninvolvement in the business of illicit liquor.  At that stage the public
\nprosecutor sought and was granted permission to ask questions in the
\nnature of cross examination.  In reply to the querries put by the public
\nprosecutor, PW11 denied the suggestion that he was doing business of
\nillicit liquor and expressed his ignorance about the statement given to
\nthe police that he was engaged in such business.  He also denied
\nhaving stated before the police that the accused had come to the
\nliquor shop with the person in the photograph and that they were
\noffering liquor to him and also asked Babu Poojari to pour more liquor
\nin his glass because he was their guest.  PW11 then stated that the
\nperson shown in the photograph was totally drunk when he came with
\ntwo accused and they were supporting him while walking and this
\nhappened 4-5 days before when he was called to the police station.
\nHe expressed his ignorance about the number of false cases registered
\nagainst him.  In cross examination he denied having indulged in any
\nactivity other than tailoring work.  He also gave out that he did not
\nknow the names of the accused when they passed in front of the
\ntailoring shop.\n<\/p>\n
\tA critical analysis of the statement of PW11 shows that the same
\nis full of contradictions.  In the examination-in-chief, he demonstrated
\nhis acquaintance with the accused by saying that they used to come to
\ntailoring shop but in cross examination he admitted that he did not
\nknow their names when they were passing in front of the tailoring
\nshop.  The second important contradiction relates to his recognition of
\nthe person shown in the photograph.  In the first instance he gave out
\nthat the said person had come with the accused for getting their
\nclothes stitched from the shop but, later on, stated that he came with
\nthe accused and was heavily drunk and was being helped by the
\naccused.  Yet another contradiction which is apparent from the
\nstatement of PW11 relates to his acquaintance with Babu Poojari.  In
\nthe beginning he flatly denied that he knew Babu Poojari and then
\nmade a u-turn by voluntarily stating that he knows Babu Poojari.  He
\nalso denied having stated before the police that he was doing the
\nbusiness of selling illicit liquor in association with Babu Poojari and that
\nthe accused offered liquor to the deceased and also asked Babu Poojari
\nto pour more liquor in his glass.  These contradictions are evident from
\nthe following extracts of the statement of PW11:
\nI know Satish Bandapalli and Devaanna Bandapalli and
\nthey were passing in front of my shop at about 10.45 p.m.
\nI do not know where they were going.  I had been knowing
\nthose 2 persons as they used to come to the tailoring
\nshop.<\/p>\n
These 2 accused had not done anything else when they
\npassed in front of my tailoring shop.  I did not know their
\nnames at that time.<\/p>\n
I had seen the person whose 2 photographs from Article 8
\nare now shown to me, but I do not know his name.  When
\nI last saw the person in this photograph, he had been with
\nthe 2 accused before this court.  Those 3 together had
\ncome to my shop.  Those 3 had come for getting their
\nclothes stitched from the shop where I used to be.  I do
\nnot remember the time when they had come to the shop.
\nNow I say that they had come at 10.30 p.m. 2-4 days
\nbefore the police came to make enquiries from me.  The
\npolice had taken me in the police station.  At the police
\nstation my signature was obtained and I was permitted to
\ngo.  The police did not read out anything to me at the time
\nthey had taken me to the police station and obtained my
\nsignature but something was read out to me 10 days back
\nwhen I had been called here.  At the time my signature
\nwas taken I was shown the photographs Article 8.<\/p>\n
It did not happen that Babu Poojari came to me and
\nagreed to work with me and we both started doing the
\nbusiness of illicit liquor.  I had not stated so to any one at
\nany time.  I can not say why portion marked A to that
\neffect has been so recorded.  It did not happen that these
\n2 accused had come to my illicit liquor business with the
\nperson in the photograph.  I had not stated so to any one
\nat any time.  I can not say why portion marked B to that
\neffect has been so recorded in my alleged statement dated
\n5.10.1994.  I had not seen these 2 accused offering liquor
\nto the person in the photograph and also asking Babu
\nPoojari to pour more liquor in his glass as he was their
\nguest.  I had not stated so to any one at any time.  I
\ncannot say why portion marked C to that effect has been
\nso recorded in my alleged statement dated 5.10.1994.
\nThe person in the photograph now shown to me Article 8
\nwas totally drunk when he had come with these 2 accused
\nto our shop.  The person in the photograph was so drunk
\nthat these 2 accused had to support the person in the
\nphotograph Article 8 for making him walk away and in that
\ncondition I last saw them walking away from the tailoring
\nshop 4-5 days before police took me to the police station.
\nAt present I have been wrongly apprehended by the police
\nin a case when there was a raid on the illicit liquor shop in
\nthe neighbourhood.  I do not know in how many false
\ncases I have been involved after being wrongly
\napprehended.<\/p>\n
\tIt is significant to note that even though PW11 denied having
\nmade statements marked A, B and C before the police but the
\ninvestigating officer, PW13 categorically asserted that Raju Poojari did
\nmake those statements.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court noted
\ncontradictions in the statement of PW11 but ignored the same by
\ndescribing them as minor.  In the opinion of the learned Sessions
\nJudge the variation in the previous statement of PW11 stands
\nexplained by his desire not to incriminate himself.  He also observed
\nthat the defence had not brought anything from the cross examination
\nof PW11 to discredit his testimony.  The High Court adopted the same
\nline of reasoning for placing reliance on the evidence of last scene.
\n\tIn our view, the testimony of PW11 is wholly untrustworthy.  He
\nappears to be a doctored witness, who came forward to support the
\nprosecution cause with a view to win favour from the police in the
\ncases registered against him in connection with the raid of illicit liquor
\nshop.  This is the reason why he made vacillating statement regarding
\nthe identity of two accused and the deceased and the purpose of their
\ncoming to the so-called tailoring shop where he was residing and also
\nworking.  It is difficult, if not possible, to believe that even though the
\naccused persons used to come to the tailoring shop for getting their
\nclothes stitched, where PW11 is said to be working, he did not know
\ntheir names.  His attempt to conceal his acquaintance with Babu
\nPoojari who was his associate in the business of illicit liquor is
\ninexplicable. The suggestive conjecture made by the learned Additional
\nSessions Judge that PW11 retracted from the statement made before
\nthe police because he did not want to incriminate himself in offences
\nrelating to business of illicit liquor cannot be accepted because the fact
\nof the matter is that the witness was arrested by the police in
\nconnection with the said business and there was every reason for him
\nto come forward to support the police case.  The testimony of PW11 is
\nalso discredited by the fact that he made self contradictory statements
\nregarding the presence of the accused and the deceased at the shop.
\nIn one breath he stated that they were passing in front of the shop
\nand thereafter sought to identify them by stating that they had come
\nfor stitching the clothes.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next thing which is to be seen is whether the evidence
\nrelating to the recovery of clothes of the appellant and the half blade,
\nallegedly used for commission of crime, is credible and could be relied
\non for proving the charge of culpable homicide against the appellant.
\nIn this context, it is important to note that the prosecution did not
\nproduce any document containing the recording of statement allegedly
\nmade by the appellant expressing his desire to facilitate recovery of
\nthe clothes and half blade.  The prosecution case that the accused
\nvolunteered to give information and took the police for recovery of the
\nclothes, half blade and purchase of handkerchief is highly suspect.  It
\nhas not been explained as to why the appellant gave information in
\npiecemeal on three dates i.e. 3.10.1994, 5.10.1994 and 6.10.1994.
\nRoom No.45 of Ganesh Bhuvan from which the clothes are said to
\nhave been recovered was found to be unlocked premises which could
\nbe accessed by any one.  The prosecution could not explain as to how
\nthe room allegedly belonging to the appellant could be without any
\nlock.  The absence of any habitation in the room also cast serious
\ndoubt on the genuineness and bonafides of recovery of clothes.  The
\nrecovery of half blade from the road side beneath the wooden board in
\nfront of Ganesh Bhuvan is also not convincing.  Undisputedly, the
\nplace from which half blade is said to have been recovered is an open
\nplace and everybody had access to the site from where the blade is
\nsaid to have been recovered. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the
\nprosecution theory regarding recovery of the half blade. The credibility
\nof the evidence relating to recovery is substantially dented by the fact
\nthat even though as per the Chemical Examiners Report the blood
\nstains found on the shirt, pant and half blade were those of human
\nblood, the same could not be linked with the blood of the deceased.
\nUnfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and High Court
\noverlooked this serious lacuna in the prosecution story and concluded
\nthat the presence of human blood stains on the cloths of the accused
\nand half blade were sufficient to link him with the murder.
\n\tThe over jealous efforts made by the prosecution to link the
\nhandkerchief allegedly found near the body of the deceased of the
\nappellant lends support to the argument of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant that the police had fabricated the case to implicate the
\nappellant.  In his statement, PW7 Mohd. Farid Abdul Gani, who is said
\nto have sold the handkerchief to the appellant, admitted that he was
\nnot selling branded handkerchiefs and that there were no particular
\nmarks on the goods sold by him.  He, however, recognized the
\nhandkerchief by saying that the accused made a lot of bargaining and
\nhe was amused by the latters statement that he will soon become an
\nactor.\n<\/p>\n
\tBoth the learned Additional Judge and High Court accepted the
\ntestimony of PW7 along with the statement of PW9 ignoring the
\nadmission made by the former that he did not put any special mark on
\nthe handkerchief sold by him; that he purchased the handkerchiefs in
\nwholesale from the market and removed the label of manufacturer
\nbefore selling the same and that there are 4 or 5 other persons
\ncarrying on the same business in the locality.  Likewise both the courts
\nignored the fact that PW9 could not confirm the exact identity of the
\nhandkerchief (marked as Article 3), he could only say that the
\nhandkerchief of the appellant was just like Article 3.
\n\tIn our opinion it is extremely difficult to believe that a person
\nengaged in the business of hawking would remember what was sold to
\na customer almost two months after the transaction and that to
\nwithout identity of the goods sold having been established.
\n\tOn the basis of above discussion we held that the prosecution
\nfailed to establish the chain of circumstances which could link the
\nappellant with the crime.  The learned Trial Court and the High Court
\ncommitted a serious error by relying on the circumstantial evidence of
\nlast scene, the recovery of pant and shirt from Room No.45 of Ganesh
\nBhuvan building, half blade from under the wooden board and the sale
\nof the handkerchief by PW7 to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result the appeal is allowed.  The judgment under appeal
\nand the one of the Trial Court are set aside and the appellant is
\nacquitted.  He shall be released forthwith if not required in connection
\nwith any other offence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna … vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008 Author: P G Singhvi Bench: G.P. Mathur, G.S. Singhvi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 579 of 2005 PETITIONER: Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/01\/2008 BENCH: G.P. Mathur & G.S. Singhvi JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSattatiya @ Satish Rajanna ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-12T12:20:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna … vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T12:20:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4765,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T12:20:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna … vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-12T12:20:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna … vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T12:20:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008"},"wordCount":4765,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008","name":"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T12:20:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sattatiya-satish-rajanna-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna … vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213181\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}