{"id":39153,"date":"2009-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-25T13:39:44","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T08:09:44","slug":"devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Bilal Nazki, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                                                     1apeal-229-07\n    Ladda\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                      CRIMINAL APPEAL No.229 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n            1.    Devchand  Punaji  Sukte,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                  age 63 years, Occupation\n                  cobbler.\n\n            2.    Bhimrao Devchand Sukte,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                  age 36 years, Occupation\n                  service.\n                       \n            3.    Raju Devchand Sukte,age\n                  33 years, Occupation nil\n                      \n                  (lunatic) represented by\n                  his mother as unmarried\n                  through         Jamunabai\n                  Devchand Sukte, age 56\n                  yrs, occupation household\n      \n\n\n                  work and cobbler.\n   \n\n\n\n                   ..Appellant\/Orig.Accused\n                                 No.1 to 3.\n\n                           Versus.\n\n\n\n\n\n                  The State of Maharashtra\n\n                              ..Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr Y. M. Chaudhary, Advocate for the Appellants.\n\n    Mrs A.S.Pai, A.P.P.for the State-Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:14:03 :::\n                                                                             2apeal-229-07\n\n\n\n                          CORAM:           BILAL NAZKI,\n                                           AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                           RESERVED ON:         12TH OCTOBER,2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                          DELIVERED ON: 16TH OCTOBER,2009\n\n\n    JUDGMENT (Per A.R.JOSHI,J):\n<\/pre>\n
    1.        We have heard the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
    appellant    as    well     as   the    learned            A.P.P.,for              the<\/p>\n
    State.\n<\/p>\n
    2.        Present      appeal          is        preferred               by        the<\/p>\n
    appellants        (original        accused               Nos.1            to         3)<\/p>\n
    challenging their conviction passed by the learned<\/p>\n
    Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai<\/p>\n
    dated 14\/11\/2006 in Sessions Case No.439\/2006.                                       By<\/p>\n
    the said impugned judgment and order all the three<\/p>\n
    accused were convicted for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
    under    Section    302     read   with          section           34      of      the<\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer<\/p>\n
    life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200\/- in<\/p>\n
    default to suffer R.I.,for one month each.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        Being aggrieved by the said judgment and<\/p>\n
    order,    the     present    appeal         is      preferred              by      the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                         3apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    appellants   who     are       hereinafter          referred             to      as<\/p>\n
    accused    persons        by    their      respective                numbers.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are the sons of Accused No.2.\n<\/p>\n
    It is their say that-accused no.1 is schizophrenic<\/p>\n
    and as such separate application is preferred for<\/p>\n
    directions   to     the    State   to      produce           the       medical<\/p>\n
    record of said accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        Before appreciating the rival submissions<\/p>\n
    and mainly the defence on behalf of the appellants-\n<\/p>\n
    accused, the case of the prosecution, as unfolded<\/p>\n
    before the Trial Court, is required to be mentioned<\/p>\n
    as under along with summary of the evidence led<\/p>\n
    before the Trial Sessions Court by the prosecution<\/p>\n
    in support of the charge for the offence of murder.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        Accused     persons      are        from         the         cobbler<\/p>\n
    community and the deceased and his family members<\/p>\n
    are from Buddhist community and as such there was<\/p>\n
    caste difference and allegedly it was the motive<\/p>\n
    behind the killing of deceased Sanjay Kamble. One<\/p>\n
    Smt Kaushalya PW 2 is the niece of the accused and<\/p>\n
    the   complainant         reside    in         the        neighborhood.\n<\/p>\n
    However, there used to be frequent quarrels between<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                             4apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    their family members on account of love marriage<\/p>\n
    between      P.W.2     with      one    Rajesh        Kamble,             (P.W.1)<\/p>\n
    husband of P.W.2.             Said P.W.1 is real brother of<\/p>\n
    the deceased Sanjay Kamble. Allegedly, on account<\/p>\n
    of such rivalry because of the inter-caste marriage<\/p>\n
    between P.W.1 and 2 there was enmity and on that<\/p>\n
    count        allegedly     accused       persons          assaulted              the<\/p>\n
    deceased Sanjay Kamble on 24.4.2006 at about 4.00<\/p>\n
    a.m., at the place a sort of platform in front of<\/p>\n
    one Sunny Bakery situated at locality of slum area<\/p>\n
    Dharavi where both the families                         reside.               Also,<\/p>\n
    according to the case of the prosecution, about two<\/p>\n
    weeks prior to the incident of murder of Sanjay<\/p>\n
    Kamble, some time on 9th April, 2006, P.W.2 had gone<\/p>\n
    to attend one marriage at Matunga.                           Accused no.1<\/p>\n
    Raju    i.e.,    her      cousin       brother,       abused            her      and<\/p>\n
    pulled her out of the marriage hall and there was<\/p>\n
    hot     exchange     of     words       and     allegedly                he      was<\/p>\n
    assaulted       by   P.W.2.        On    that        count          a      police<\/p>\n
    complaint was lodged by accused no.1 against P.W.2<\/p>\n
    and    her    in-laws      and    also    against           the         deceased<\/p>\n
    Sanjay. According to the case of the prosecution,<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                              5apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    this was the proximate cause for the accused to<\/p>\n
    take    revenge      and    to    do    away        with        the       deceased<\/p>\n
    Sanjay.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         On the night of 23.4.2006, as usual, the<\/p>\n
    deceased Sanjay had gone to sleep on the platform<\/p>\n
    in front of Sunny bakery.                   At about 4.00 a.m., on<\/p>\n
    the next day, there were shouts raised and noticing<\/p>\n
    such commotion P.W.1, brother of the deceased left<\/p>\n
    his house which is at back side of Sunny bakery<\/p>\n
    beyond a road and reached the spot and witnessed<\/p>\n
    the    incident      of    assault     on     his       brother           deceased<\/p>\n
    Sanjay.        According to P.W.1, he saw that accused<\/p>\n
    Nos.2 and 3 had caught hold of hands and legs of<\/p>\n
    the deceased while accused no.1 gave blows with the<\/p>\n
    help of a wooden log on the head and other parts of<\/p>\n
    the body of the deceased.                     Noticing presence of<\/p>\n
    P.W.1, accused persons ran away from the spot. The<\/p>\n
    deceased       was    lying      on    the      ground           in       severely<\/p>\n
    injured condition.            By the time, the wife of P.W.1<\/p>\n
    i.e.,P.W. no.2 and mother of P.W.No.1 both reached<\/p>\n
    the    spot.    Probably      after     some        time        police          party<\/p>\n
    arrived    on        the    spot       on     receiving               intimation<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           6apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    regarding commotion.             At this juncture, it may be<\/p>\n
    mentioned that nowhere in the substantive evidence<\/p>\n
    of    the      prosecution       witnesses          and         mainly           the<\/p>\n
    evidence of P.W.No.9, a Police Officer, P.S.I.,Shri<\/p>\n
    Bhosale        and       Investigating             Officer,                P.W.10<\/p>\n
    P.S.I.Shri Sawant, it has been brought on record as<\/p>\n
    to    how     the     police    came     to   know        regarding              the<\/p>\n
    commotion.      However,        the    fact    remains           that        after<\/p>\n
    arrival of the police party the deceased Sanjay was<\/p>\n
    taken to Sion Hospital in a police van.                                   He was<\/p>\n
    declared       dead     after    examination          by       the       doctor.\n<\/p>\n
    According to the prosecution, complaint of P.W.1<\/p>\n
    was recorded by P.S.I. Shri Bhosale (P.W.9) at Sion<\/p>\n
    Hospital.       Same is taken as F.I.R., vide Exh.10 and<\/p>\n
    offence was registered for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
    under       Section    302     read    with    Section           34      of      the<\/p>\n
    I.P.C. Against all three accused.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           During investigation, inquest panchnama was<\/p>\n
    conducted in which panch witness P.W.3 took part.\n<\/p>\n
    The spot panchnama was also conducted in which P.W.\n<\/p>\n
    4    took    part.     Also,    during    the      investigation                 the<\/p>\n
    statements of various witnesses including that of<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          7apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    P.W.2, wife of P.W.1, were recorded.                         According to<\/p>\n
    the prosecution, at about 2.00 p.m., on 24.4.2006<\/p>\n
    all the accused were put under arrest and                                 arrest<\/p>\n
    panchnama was conducted in which P.W.Nos.5 and 8<\/p>\n
    took part.      According to the prosecution, while in<\/p>\n
    the    custody,      accused          No.1    made          a       voluntary<\/p>\n
    statement in presence of panch witnesses including<\/p>\n
    panch P.W.7, to produce a wooden log.                                 At this<\/p>\n
    juncture, it must be mentioned that said P.W.7 did<\/p>\n
    not support the prosecution case and stated that<\/p>\n
    his signature was obtained by the police when he<\/p>\n
    had been to Sion Hospital to receive the dead body<\/p>\n
    of deceased Sanjay. Said P.W.7 was declared hostile<\/p>\n
    and was cross-examined by the prosecution. However,<\/p>\n
    nothing     could   be   extracted       from       his       evidence            in<\/p>\n
    order to support the case of the prosecution as to<\/p>\n
    alleged recovery of wooden log which was allegedly<\/p>\n
    used   by   accused      No.1    in    the    offence           of      murder.\n<\/p>\n
    Again, it must be mentioned that said recovery of<\/p>\n
    wooden log at the instance of accused No.1 has been<\/p>\n
    disbelieved by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          Also,   during      the    investigation              after the<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           8apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    arrest     of     the        accused    and    during           the        arrest<\/p>\n
    panchnama in presence of panch witnesses P.W.Nos. 5<\/p>\n
    and 8 clothes of the accused persons were taken<\/p>\n
    charge of under the panchnama Exh.15. According to<\/p>\n
    the case of the prosecution, clothes of the accused<\/p>\n
    were    having     blood       stains.    However,          there        was       no<\/p>\n
    such     mention        in      the    said      panchnama               Exh.15.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, panch P.W.5 did not support the case of<\/p>\n
    the prosecution and as such turned hostile.\n<\/p>\n
                      ig                                                       Though\n\n    P.W.8    supported        the    panchnama      of     seizure           of      the\n                    \n    clothes     from     the       accused    persons,            he      did        not\n\n<\/pre>\n
    correctly identify the clothes of the accused No.1<\/p>\n
    and identified the clothes of the deceased as of<\/p>\n
    accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    9.         P.W.6        is    the     Asstt.Sub       Inspector,               then<\/p>\n
    attached to Shahunagar Police Station and was on<\/p>\n
    duty     along     with       other    staff      and       on       receiving<\/p>\n
    message    on     wireless       at    early   hours         of      24.4.2006<\/p>\n
    regarding some commotion at Matunga Labour Camp, he<\/p>\n
    went to the spot and located the Sunny bakery and<\/p>\n
    found    the     deceased       and    other   witnesses             and       then<\/p>\n
    took the deceased to Sion Hospital in the mobile<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                9apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    van. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the Police Officers.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Again,       prior      to    appreciating                 the        rival<\/p>\n
    submissions, it must be mentioned that the Trial<\/p>\n
    Court      had    mainly     relied       upon      on      the      substantive<\/p>\n
    evidence of P.W.1 as the eye-witness and solely on<\/p>\n
    his testimony rather uncorroborated by any other<\/p>\n
    material,         convicted         the    appellants-accused.                          As<\/p>\n
    mentioned earlier, the Trial Court disbelieved the<\/p>\n
    recovery of wooden log at the instance of Accused<\/p>\n
    No.1. Again, another circumstance is required to be<\/p>\n
    construed that one               panch P.W.5, for arrest and<\/p>\n
    seizure      of    the       clothes      of      the        accused            turned<\/p>\n
    hostile and another panch P.W.8 misidentified the<\/p>\n
    clothes      as    of   accused      No.1.        Moreover,             there         was<\/p>\n
    nothing brought on record that the clothes of the<\/p>\n
    accused persons were sealed on the spot. So also,<\/p>\n
    admittedly, the blood groups of the accused persons<\/p>\n
    are not determined though it is brought on record<\/p>\n
    that the alleged blood found on the clothes of the<\/p>\n
    accused      matched         with    the       blood          group          of       the<\/p>\n
    deceased. Moreover, if the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
    as    to   seizure      of    the    clothes          of      the       appellants<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                   10apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    accused      in    the    afternoon            of       24.4.2006             is     to      be<\/p>\n
    accepted then it is also to be construed that since<\/p>\n
    the time of the offence all the three accused were<\/p>\n
    wearing same clothes though allegedly the clothes<\/p>\n
    had blood stains.                   It must be said that such a<\/p>\n
    situation does not sound to reason and logic and<\/p>\n
    can be considered as mitigating circumstance to the<\/p>\n
    case of the prosecution so far as the recovery of<\/p>\n
    alleged blood stained clothes from the person of<\/p>\n
    the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    11.          With        the        above       background,                    now         the<\/p>\n
    arguments        advanced       by       the    learned             counsel              Shri<\/p>\n
    Choudhary for the appellants-accused are required<\/p>\n
    to    be    construed          so    far       as     appreciation                 of      the<\/p>\n
    evidence of P.W.1, which is only important piece of<\/p>\n
    evidence taken as acceptable by the Trial Court for<\/p>\n
    convicting         the    appellants.                  Needless            to      mention<\/p>\n
    that the evidence of single eye-witness as in the<\/p>\n
    present case is required to be critically examined,<\/p>\n
    when       his    evidence          is   of     such         a     status          as      not<\/p>\n
    wholely          reliable and in that event there need to<\/p>\n
    be a corroboration                  to his evidence.                       Admittedly,<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                      11apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    in the present case, the evidence of P.W.1 is not<\/p>\n
    corroborated by any material. Admittedly, there are<\/p>\n
    various     infirmities    and     contradictions                    in       the<\/p>\n
    evidence of P.W.1 which go to show that he was not<\/p>\n
    the eye-witness to see the incident and to see the<\/p>\n
    appellants-accused assaulting his brother Sanjay.\n<\/p>\n
    12.       Admittedly,     the     deceased            Sanjay           was           a<\/p>\n
    habitual drunkard and was a patient of HIV\/AIDS and<\/p>\n
    used to sleep outside the house on the platform in<\/p>\n
    front of the Sunny bakery and was sleeping on the<\/p>\n
    fateful day.       The house of P.W.1 is located behind<\/p>\n
    the Sunny Bakery at a distance of 5 minutes walk.\n<\/p>\n
    At one occasion, in his evidence P.W.1 stated that<\/p>\n
    the place of offence is two seconds                      walk from his<\/p>\n
    house.    According to P.W.1 himself front portion of<\/p>\n
    the Sunny Bakery where the platform situate is not<\/p>\n
    visible     from    the   house    of        P.W.1.                 However,<\/p>\n
    according    to    him,   he     saw      the        incident             while<\/p>\n
    standing in front of the house of the bakery owner<\/p>\n
    and which was located behind the bakery. On this<\/p>\n
    aspect, the reasoning given by the Trial Court has<\/p>\n
    been examined by us in which reasoning is given by<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           12apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    the   Trial       Court    in     favour     of      P.W.1         as      to      his<\/p>\n
    standing      position      in    front     of      the      house         and       at<\/p>\n
    which angle he could have seen the place of the<\/p>\n
    offence.          In our view, such reasoning cannot be<\/p>\n
    accepted in order to accept the testimony of P.W.1<\/p>\n
    as an eye-witness considering other circumstances<\/p>\n
    which are given hereunder. Such circumstances are<\/p>\n
    as under.\n<\/p>\n
    13.          According to P.W.1, he woke up at 4.00 on<\/p>\n
    the fateful day to get water and heard some sound.\n<\/p>\n
    He    went    to    the     spot,     he     saw        accused            persons<\/p>\n
    assaulting his brother in front of the bakery. He<\/p>\n
    started shouting. Noticing his presence the accused<\/p>\n
    persons ran away. Thereafter, his wife P.W.2 and<\/p>\n
    mother came to the spot.                   However, till the time<\/p>\n
    police arrived on the spot, P.W.1 did not take any<\/p>\n
    steps to remove his brother to the hospital. There<\/p>\n
    are   certain       discrepancies,          at      what         time        police<\/p>\n
    arrived      on    the    spot,    whether        immediately                within<\/p>\n
    five to ten minutes or after about an hour or so.\n<\/p>\n
    However, admittedly, the deceased was taken to Sion<\/p>\n
    Hospital      at    5:10    a.m.,and       was       declared            dead        on<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                     13apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    arrival       at    Hospital.   According           to        P.W.1          the<\/p>\n
    incident of assault occurred at 4.00 a.m. Whereas<\/p>\n
    according to the police they reached the spot at<\/p>\n
    about 5:00 a.m., or so. This time gap has been much<\/p>\n
    emphasized on behalf of the appellants and it is<\/p>\n
    suggested that the conduct of P.W.1 is unnatural<\/p>\n
    inasmuch as not taking immediate steps to take the<\/p>\n
    injured brother Sanjay for medical treatment, if it<\/p>\n
    is    accepted      that
\n                        ig     he   was   the       eye       witness            and<\/p>\n
    witnessed the assault at about 4:00 a.m. In our<\/p>\n
    opinion, such arguments on behalf of the appellants<\/p>\n
    are acceptable and in that event                     the benefit of<\/p>\n
    doubt must go in favour of the accused persons so<\/p>\n
    far P.W.1 witnessing the incident.\n<\/p>\n
    14.       According to P.W.1 police arrived on the<\/p>\n
    spot at about 10 to 15 minutes after the incident<\/p>\n
    at    about   4:20    a.m.,whereas    P.W.2,          wife       of      P.W.1<\/p>\n
    narrated that the police arrived within two minutes<\/p>\n
    of the incident. As against this, P.W.6, a Police<\/p>\n
    Officer who first arrived on the spot in a mobile<\/p>\n
    police van stated that he reached the spot at about<\/p>\n
    4:50 a.m.          Apart from this discrepancy there is<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                             14apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    another     discrepancy          as     to     at       which         place          the<\/p>\n
    statement\/complaint of P.w.1 was recorded by the<\/p>\n
    police.       According         to     him,      his       statement             under<\/p>\n
    Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., that is the complaint<\/p>\n
    was recorded at Police Station when he reached the<\/p>\n
    police    station      after      attending            the       hospital            and<\/p>\n
    knowing that his brother Sanjay is dead. Whereas,<\/p>\n
    according      to    P.W.9,      the     I.O.,          P.S.I.Bhosale                  he<\/p>\n
    recorded     complaint
\n                     ig             of     P.W.1         at       Sion         Hospital<\/p>\n
    itself. Pointing this discrepancy it is strongly<\/p>\n
    submitted on behalf of the appellants that there<\/p>\n
    was   every         possibility         for         P.W.1          to        falsely<\/p>\n
    implicate the accused persons because of the enmity<\/p>\n
    between two families.\n<\/p>\n
    15.        Apart from assailing the evidence of P.W.1<\/p>\n
    and   asking    for       the    clear       cut       acquittal             of      the<\/p>\n
    appellants-accused              from     the          offence              charged,<\/p>\n
    alternatively        it    is        argued       on       behalf           of       the<\/p>\n
    appellants that at the most the entire case of the<\/p>\n
    prosecution     can       be    brought        down        to      the       offence<\/p>\n
    punishable     under       Section       304(II)           of      I.P.C.,           and<\/p>\n
    that also only against accused No.1.                            This is, more<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                      15apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    so,   in   view   of     alleged      use     of      wooden          log       by<\/p>\n
    accused No.1 alone and not intending to cause death<\/p>\n
    of the deceased or otherwise he could have used<\/p>\n
    other weapon. It is also submitted on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    appellants    that     Section   34    cannot          be     applied           to<\/p>\n
    accused Nos.2 and 3 so as to implicate them in the<\/p>\n
    offence of murder as no any overt act is attributed<\/p>\n
    to them. In our opinion, such alternative arguments<\/p>\n
    are of no much relevance if it is held that the<\/p>\n
    evidence    of    P.W.1,     alleged     eye-witness,                 is      not<\/p>\n
    trust worthy and is uncorroborated testimony.                                   In<\/p>\n
    other words, it must be said that considering the<\/p>\n
    mitigating circumstance mentioned above in the case<\/p>\n
    of the prosecution, the Trial Court had erred in<\/p>\n
    accepting the testimony of P.W.1 as trust worthy<\/p>\n
    and there is every reason to doubt the testimony of<\/p>\n
    P.W.1 for the reasons mentioned above and also for<\/p>\n
    the reasons of non-examination of any independent<\/p>\n
    witness though admittedly near the spot there are<\/p>\n
    residential       hutments     and     the       daily           water          is<\/p>\n
    available at such early hours of 4.00 a.m., in the<\/p>\n
    said locality of Matunga Labour Camp. Considering<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                         16apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
    such   circumstances,          there         was         definitely                    a<\/p>\n
    possibility      of    any     independent              witness             being<\/p>\n
    present   on    the   spot.    However,          there         is     no      such<\/p>\n
    evidence brought before the Court and the case of<\/p>\n
    the prosecution rests only on the testimony of P.W.\n<\/p>\n
    1.<\/p>\n
    16.       Though the trial Court had held that there<\/p>\n
    was sufficient motive for the appellant-accused to<\/p>\n
    do away with the deceased because of the rivalry,<\/p>\n
    there could be a possibility of false implication<\/p>\n
    of the accused. Though this aspect has also been<\/p>\n
    dealt with by the Trial Judge still he took the<\/p>\n
    side of the prosecution which in our view is error<\/p>\n
    committed by the Trial Court. In all probabilities,<\/p>\n
    it must be held that the prosecution had failed to<\/p>\n
    establish      the   guilt   of    all    three         accused           beyond<\/p>\n
    reasonable       doubt       and     in         that           event            the<\/p>\n
    circumstances warrant interference in the impugned<\/p>\n
    judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
    17.       In    the    result,      the       present            appeal           is<\/p>\n
    disposed of with the following order.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>\n                                                                 17apeal-229-07\n\n                              ORDER\n\n     1.   Appeal is      allowed.\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n<\/pre>\n
     2.   Conviction of Appellant-Accused No.1<\/p>\n
     ,2 and 3 passed by the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
     Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case<\/p>\n
     No.439\/2006       under Section 302 r.w.s.34<\/p>\n
     of the IPC is set aside. They are hereby<\/p>\n
     acquitted.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                         \n     3.   The   appellants\n                ig               be    set        at      liberty\n\n     forthwith if       not required in any other\n              \n     case.\n\n     4.   It    is     submitted      by       the        learned\n      \n\n     counsel     for    the    appellants            that         the\n   \n\n\n\n     original     accused     No.1     is      in       Yerawada\n\n     Mental     Hospital.      He     may      be       produced\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     before the Board of Visitors and he may<\/p>\n
     be released or handed over to his family<\/p>\n
     members in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   Appeal is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (BILAL NAZKI,J)<\/p>\n
                                                    (A.R.JOSHI,J)<\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                        18apeal-229-07<\/p>\n
             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:04 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009 Bench: Bilal Nazki, A. R. Joshi 1apeal-229-07 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.229 OF 2007 1. Devchand Punaji Sukte, age 63 years, Occupation cobbler. 2. Bhimrao Devchand Sukte, age 36 years, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDevchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009 - 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\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T08:09:44+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T08:09:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2838,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T08:09:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009 - 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\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T08:09:44+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T08:09:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009"},"wordCount":2838,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009","name":"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T08:09:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devchand-punaji-sukte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devchand Punaji Sukte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/39153","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=39153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}