Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2006,

Judges

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.R. BORKAR

Acts

Sections 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Section 302s r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Sections 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns an appeal against a conviction and sentence arising from the burning death of one Taterao Dharoji Rajegore. The record shows that appellant nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of appellant no. 3; the deceased's daughter Premala and others were present in the house (Wada) when the incident occurred. The prosecution's case, as set out in the opinion, is that appellants 1 and 2 climbed over the compound wall, entered the Wada, beat Taterao, left him unconscious or dead inside the Wada, placed wooden articles and bedding on him, poured kerosene and set him alight; appellant no. 3 (Kesharbai) was alleged to have been near the door instigating the others to set the house on fire and kill the inmates. The bodies were found burnt to skeleton by police and panchas; medical evidence showed 100% burns and skull fracture.

Procedurally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced them. The convictions and sentences of the three accused were challenged in this appeal. The trial judge principally relied on the evidence of eye-witnesses pw1 (Jijabai), pw2 (Nandabai) and pw3 (Premala), corroborated by medical and panchanama evidence. The appeal led the appellate court to examine the testimony, the inquest and spot panchanama, forensic findings, and the extent of each accused's participation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the evidence on record (eye-witness testimony, inquest/spot panchanama and medical evidence) sufficiently supports the convictions of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 and Sections 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether accused no. 3 (Kesharbai) shared the common intention to commit murder or participated in causing disappearance of evidence such that her conviction should be sustained, or whether she should be acquitted for want of reliable evidence linking her to those offences.
Whether any improvements or omissions in the testimony of primary witnesses undermine the prosecution case as to the guilt of appellant nos. 1 and 2.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bhagwan Tana Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 21	That the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus should not be blindly invoked; courts must separate truth from embellishment and accept what is true in a witness's testimony even if portions are false or exaggerated.	The court applied the principle to justify accepting the main aspects of eyewitness testimony (pw1, pw2, pw3) despite some improvements or minor inconsistencies in their evidence, holding that the doctrine did not require rejection of the witnesses' entire testimony and supporting convictions of accused nos. 1 and 2 while permitting acquittal of accused no. 3 where evidence against her was shaky.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a witness-by-witness and documentary analysis, structured around corroboration and the effect of omissions/improvements in testimony:

Primary reliance: The learned Additional Sessions Judge had relied mainly on pw1 (Jijabai), pw2 (Nandabai) and pw3 (Premala). The appellate court examined these testimonies and found them consistent in their core narrative that appellants 1 and 2 entered the Wada, beat Taterao and set him on fire.
Corroboration by medical and panchanama evidence: The inquest panchanama (Exh.57) and spot panchanama (Exh.58) described the burnt condition of the body (reduced to skeleton, skull fracture, burnt brain tissues) and the layout of the Wada; post-mortem notes and expert evidence established death by 100% burns and confirmed the bones were human and male above 60 years. The court treated this material as corroborative of the prosecution's narrative that the deceased had been burnt.
Inspection of omissions and inconsistencies: The court noted some omissions and improvements in pw1's evidence (e.g., the alleged offer by accused no.2 to accompany pw3), but characterized these as relatively minor and not undermining the core testimony. Cross-examination had not impeached the substance of the eye-witness evidence against appellant nos. 1 and 2. The court observed that pw2 had only seen the initial beating and not the burning, and that police records reflected that pw1 had lodged the complaint at the police station, possibly explaining perceived discrepancies about who first lodged the complaint.
Application of the falsus-in-uno principle: Citing Bhagwan Tana Patil, the court emphasized that exaggerations or improvements do not automatically nullify a witness's entire testimony — the court must disentangle true from false elements. Using this reasoning, the court accepted the truthful core of the eye-witness testimonies while discounting peripheral embellishments.
Assessment of accused no. 3 (Kesharbai): The court found the evidence against her to be weak and inconsistent. Key points included: differing accounts as to how and when she arrived; assertions that she was present only briefly (5–10 minutes) while the incident lasted longer; no evidence she held a weapon or took active part in burning the deceased; inconsistencies between pw1, pw2 and pw3 as to her precise conduct and role; and improbabilities regarding how she could have entered if doors were latched. On the totality of circumstances, the court concluded that the possibility of her being falsely implicated existed and accordingly gave her the benefit of doubt.
Assessment of accused nos. 1 and 2: The court found no convincing reason to disbelieve the main eyewitnesses about the acts of accused nos. 1 and 2. There was no effective discredit in cross-examination of their evidence regarding the guilt of accused nos. 1 and 2, and the medical/panchanama evidence corroborated the gravamen of the prosecution case. Hence, the convictions as to accused nos. 1 and 2 were sustained.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal was partly allowed. Specifically:

The conviction and sentence of original accused no. 3 (Kesharbai w/o Waman Shinde) are quashed and set aside; she is acquitted of the offences for which she was charged and convicted. Any fine paid by her is to be refunded and, since she is in jail, she is to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.
The appeal filed by original accused no. 1 (Narayan s/o Waman Shinde) and original accused no. 2 (Antaji alias Balu s/o Waman Shinde) is dismissed, thereby confirming their conviction and sentence.

Implications: The direct practical effect is the acquittal and immediate release (subject to other legal detentions) of accused no. 3 and the upholding of convictions and sentences for accused nos. 1 and 2. The court applied established precedent (Bhagwan Tana Patil) regarding evaluation of partially inconsistent witness testimony; it did not purport to lay down a new legal principle or create new precedent beyond applying settled law to the facts. The decision thus resolves the parties' rights in this case without announcing novel legal doctrine.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Narayan v. The State Of Maharashtra

punishable under Section 302s r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month for offence punishable under Sections 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below.

. Appellant nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of appellant no. 3. Sunita is daughter of appellant no.

3-Kesharbai and sister of appellant nos. 1 and 2.

Sunita had illicit relations with Gangadhar the son of deceased Taterao Dharoji Rajegore resident of village Dabhad, Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded. Sunita was doing nursing course. Sunita and Gangadhar had illicit relations and the appellants were insisting that Gangadhar should marry Sunita. Taterao the father of (-3-) Gangadhar was opposing such marriage on the ground that Gangadhar had already married pw2-Nandabai and had a son. On 28.4.2004 Gangadhar and Sunita were arrested from one lodge by police. It is prosecution case that murder of Taterao was committed by appellants in furtherance of their common intention because he was opposing the proposal of marriage of Sunita and Gangadhar.

pw3-Premala the daughter of deceased Taterao, pw5-Madhav Rajegore and neighbour Maulanbai were chitchatting in the house of Taterao. Taterao was also at the house.

The door of the Wada (closed building) was latched. At that time appellant nos. 1 and 2 climbed over the compound wall of the Wada and started abusing Taterao.

Thereafter both entered in the Wada and started beating Taterao with stones tied in big handkerchieves and asked whether Taterao had become proficient lawyer and they would kill him. At that time they also threatened pw1-Jijabai, pw2-Nandabai and pw3-Premala. Thereafter the door of the Wada was opened by the appellants.

Taterao was taken out and beaten and again brought in (-4-) the Wada. Nobody came for help though pw1-Jijabai, pw2-Nandabai and pw3-Premala raised shouts. Then the said three ladies went out. As per the first information report, at that time, appellant no.

3-Kesharbai was near door and she was instigating appellant nos. 1 and 2 to set the house on fire and to kill all inmates by fire. By the time Taterao was brought back into the Wada, he was dead. He was not making any movements. Thereafter appellant nos. 1 and 2 placed wooden cot, other wood material on the person of Taterao, poured kerosene on him and set him on fire.

investigation, charge-sheet was sent.

5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly relied upon the evidence of pw1-Jijabai, pw2-Nandabai and pw3-Premala as corroborated by the medical evidence.

(-6-) Pw4-Datta Rajegore proved inquest panchanama at Exh.57 and spot panchanama at Exh.58. Relying on the evidence, learned Sessions Judge passed the order of conviction and sentence. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal.

6. Pw1-Jijabai examined at Exh.16, pw2-Nandabai examined at Exh.52 and pw3-Premala examined at Exh.53 have stated consistently that for opposing marriage of Sunita and Gangadhar, the incident had taken place. On the night of the incident said three ladies were at the house (Wada).

but appellants chased him, held him and dragged him back in the Wada. Taterao became unconscious and thereafter appellants poured kerosene on the cot, mattress, pillows, chairs and put them on the person of Taterao and set Taterao on fire along with those articles. As per pw1-Jijabai, accused no.3-Kesharbai was present along with other appellants and she was instigating them. It is further stated by pw1-Jijabai that appellant no.1-Narayan took out his clothes and put them into fire.

He took bath. He was then only wearing an underwear. Then he threatened Jijabai and others to throw them into fire and so they ran away.

8. Pw1-Jijabai also said that accused no.2-Antaji asked pw3-Premala to accompany him, so that he would leave her at her maternal aunt's house, but she refused.

Accused no. 2-Antaji forcibly took pw3-Premala away and left her somewhere midway and then her daughter went on her own to her maternal aunt's house. However, so far as this part is concerned, pw3-Premala or pw2-Nandabai did not support the case of pw1-Jijabai. They did not state that accused no.2-Antaji asked pw3-Premala to accompany and took her away or left her on the midway.

(-8-)

9. According to pw1-Jijabai, appellants wanted Gangadhar to marry daughter of appellant no.3 and sister of appellant nos. 1 and 2, but since they refused, Taterao was killed. After the incident she first went to her parental house which was in the same village and returned back at 1.30 a.m. or so. Her husband's body had been then totally burnt. Only bones and ashes had remained. In the morning police came at 9.30 a.m. and recorded her complaint Exh.25 which is reproduced earlier in para 3.

10. The evidence of pw1-Jijabai is supported by pw2-Nandabai to some extent, in as much as she stated that after appellants entered the house and started beating Taterao with stones tied in cloths, Taterao asked her to leave the house suspecting that the appellants might even beat her and, therefore, she went out of the house with her child and hid herself in shrubs. After some time she saw fire in the house and she went to village Shelgaon at the house of one Nagorao. Nagorao then reached her at her parental village Digras. Early in the morning she received information regarding the incident at the house and so they came to Dabhad, saw the dead body of Taterao and (-9-) thereafter she along with her parents went to Ardhapur police station and she narrated the incident to police.

Police recorded her statement and came to the spot. It is argued that this statement of pw2-Nandabai shows that police have recorded statement of Nandabai as the first information report and that is being withheld from the Court. However, the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of pw2-Nandabai make it clear that she had seen only initial part of the incident where Taterao was only injured by appellant nos. 1 and 2. She did not see Taterao becoming unconscious or the appellants setting him on fire. A.P.I. (pw12) Ramrao Gadekar has stated that pw1-Jijabai, pw2-Nandabai along with parents of Nandabai had come to Ardhapur police station and lodged complaint. He denied that pw2-Nandabai had lodged complaint. Possibly since pw1-Jijabai was with pw2-Nandabai, though enquiries were made with both, police must have recorded complaint of pw1-Jijabai.

11. Pw3-Premala who is daughter of Taterao has deposed consistently with the deposition of pw1-Jijabai.

Pw3-Premala stated that after appellants entered the Wada and started beating Taterao with stones tied in cloth pieces, they started shouting, but none of the villagers came. The appellants threatened pw2-Nandabai (-10-) and, therefore, Taterao asked pw2-Nandabai to leave the house along with small child. Immediately pw2-Nandabai ran away from the house. Her father sustained bleeding injuries. Her father tried to go out of the house, but accused chased him and brought him back. Thereafter accused threw cot, cushion and other articles on the person of Taterao who was unconscious. According to pw3-Premala at that time accused no.3-Kesharbai came to the spot and instigated accused nos. 1 and 2 to kill Taterao. She was also saying that Taterao was opposing marriage of Sunita with Gangadhar. Pw3-Premala did not state that accused no.3-Kesharbai instigated setting the house on fire and killing all inmates in fire.

Pw3-Premala further stated that after articles were placed on the body of unconscious Taterao he was put on fire. Then appellant gave beating and threats to them and, therefore, she left the house and proceeded to the house of her maternal aunt. So she falsified the story of pw1-Jijabai that accused no.2-Antaji offered pw3-Premala to accompany him to the house of her maternal aunt. Moreover said version of pw1-Jijabai appears to be unreasonable considering the other conduct of appellant nos.1 and 2.

12. The presence of pw1-Jijabai, pw2-Nandabai and (-11-) pw3-Premala at the place of incident was most natural as they were inmates of the house. The incident had taken place in the house. The fact that none of the villagers came to their rescue was natural considering the ghastly act.

13. Absolutely nothing was brought in the cross-examination of any of these witnesses so far as their evidence against appellant nos. 1 and 2 is concerned. The omissions brought in para 4 of statement of pw1-Jijabai at Exh.16 are relatively very minor.

However reference should be made to the omission brought on record regarding statement that appellant no.2-Antaji asked daughter of Jijabai to accompany him and that he would leave her at the house of her maternal aunt which we have referred to earlier.

14. The cross-examination of pw1-Jijabai clearly shows that appellants were enraged because Sunita had not only illicit relations with Gangadhar, but as it was suggested, Sunita was pregnant. Earlier Sunita had lodged complaint against Gangadhar for outraging her modesty. In spite of that their illicit affair continued and under the circumstances, it is natural that the appellants would insist that Gangadhar should (-12-) marry Sunita, to save their family honour. It is also brought on record that on the day of occurrence i.e. 18.4.2004 the police of Shivajinagar police station, Nanded had brought Gangadhar and Sunita from one lodge and detained them in the police station. This was brought on record in para 2 of the deposition of Jijabai recorded on 3.6.2006.

15. So far as main story of the prosecution is concerned, inquest panchanama Exh.57 proved by pw4-Datta Rajegore shows that when police and panchas reached the house in the ig morning of 29.4.2004, the dead body of Taterao was reduced to ashes and bones. However, police and panchas could see the condition of dead body and stated that the legs of the dead body were on north and head was on south. Even skull had broken and brain had turn into ashes. They could see left hand turn on backside; whereas right hand had turned on upper side.

So they could see the skeleton of the burnt body. The spot panchanama Exh. 58 further supports the case. It also describes the Wada and gives sketch of it.

16. Pw5-Madhav Rajegore examined at Exh.60 has partly supported the prosecution case. He stated that on the day of the incident he had gone to the house of Taterao (-13-) at about 10.00 a.m. Taterao, Jijabai and other members of the family were in the house. After half an hour two persons entered the house by jumping over wall and they started beating Taterao and his daughter. They tried to beat him also, but he ran away. The witness stated that there was no light in the house and he could not see the persons. He ran to Shelgaon and on the next day he learnt about the murder of Taterao. He was declared hostile. But even part of the examination-in-chief clearly shows that there is truth in the evidence of pw1-Jijabai, pw2-Nandabai and pw3-Premala. He may not have identified accused nos. 1 and 2. Perhaps he may not be knowing them or he may be a witness who did not support prosecution due to his relations with accused as suggested to him.

17. Pw6-Dr. Deshmukh stated that at the request of police he went to the spot of the incident. It was a courtyard of house of one Taterao. There was body which was burnt 100 per cent. He noticed fracture of skull and burnt bones and burnt brain tissues. So he collected bones for sending the same for sex determination to the Medical College, Aurangabad.

Probable cause of death was 100 per cent burns. He proved his postmorten notes at Exh.64, which show that (-14-) nothing had remained except skeleton (of bones).

18. Pw7-Dr. Devarshee was working as an Associate Professor in Anatomy Department of the Government Medical College, Aurangabad. He examined the bones and gave certificate Exh. 69. He found that the bones were human bones and deceased was male above 60 years.

punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is well founded and justified. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve the main eye witnesses in spite of some improvements by pw1-Jijabai. Now it is well settled principle that doctrine of maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply in India. In Bhagwan Tana Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 21, the Supreme Court has observed as follows :

" The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is (-15-) not to be blindly invoked in appraising evidence adduced in our Courts where witnesses seldom tell the whole truth, but often resort to exaggeration, embellishments and "padding-up" to support a story however true in the main. It is the function of the Court to disengage the truth from false-hood and to accept what it finds to be true, and reject the rest. It is only where truth and false-hood are inextricably mixed up polluting beyond refinement, down to the core, the entire fabric of the narration given by a witness, that the Court might be justified in rejecting his evidence in toto. "

20. However, so far as appellant no.3-Kesharbai is concerned, we find that evidence against her is of a shaky nature. As per evidence of pw1-Jijabai, accused no.3-Kesharbai occurrence.

ig had not come to her house She did not ask Jijabai to arrange marriage prior to of Gangadhar with Sunita. Kesharbai was present in her house only for 5 to 10 minutes whereas the incident continued for about one hour. It is also stated by pw1-Jijabai that Taterao had no talk with accused no.3-Kesharbai nor she had any talk with Kesharbai.

Kesharbai was not holding any object or weapon in her hand. So it is doubtful whether Kesharbai who was present for only 5 to 10 minutes, had shared common intention to commit murder of Taterao or commit offence punishable under Sections 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record to show that she took part in commission of crime or causing in disappearance (-16-) of evidence.

21. No doubt in her statement pw1-Jijabai has stated that accused no.3-Kesharbai was present and instigated her sons i.e. appellant nos. 1 and 2 to kill Taterao.

It will have to be seen whether this is embellishment or improvement to involve one more person as accused person. As per the first information report proved at Exh. 25, pw1-Jijabai stated before police at the out set that appellant no.3-Kesharbai was near door and she was instigating that house should be set on fire and all should be killed by fire and she was also watching who was coming and going. Pw2-Nandabai has not stated about presence of accused no.3-Kesharbai in her statement at Exh. 52. Pw3-Premala has, however, stated in her examination-in-chief that accused no.3-Kesharbai came on the spot when her father had become unconscious and instigated appellant nos. 1 and 2 for killing Taterao saying that Taterao was opposing marriage of Sunita with Gangadhar. In the cross-examination (para 5) pw3-Premala stated that appellant no.3-Kesharbai had no talk with any member of her family. Though they were four women on the spot, they did not attempt to drive out Kesharbai. Kesharbai had stayed at the spot for about half an hour and the incident took place for 2 to (-17-) 3 hours. According to her Kesharbai entered house from front door; whereas as per pw1-Jijabai Kesharbai entered the house from back door at about 11.30 p.m. It is difficult to believe that back door would be open and not bolted or latched at 11.30 p.m., when admittedly front door was latched from inside and appellant nos. 1 and 2 had entered the house by climbing over the compound wall of the Wada. So considering totality of the circumstances, in our opinion, possibility of accused no.3-Kesharbai being involved in the incident falsely is there and we prefer to give benefit of doubt to accused no.3-Kesharbai.

22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of original accused no. 3 -

Kesharbai w/o Waman Shinde is quashed and set aside and she is acquitted of the offence with which she was charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by original accused no. 3 - Kesharbai be refunded to her. Since she is in jail, she be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

. Appeal filed by original accused no. 1 - Narayan s/o Waman Shinde and original accused no. 2 - Antaji alias Balu s/o Waman Shinde is dismissed confirming (-18-) their conviction and sentence.

Narayan v. The State Of Maharashtra

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Narayan v. The State Of Maharashtra

Comments