BALU SONBA SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-116
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 06,2002
BALU SONBA SHINDE
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]M G AGARWAL M K KULKARNI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAMESH PRASAD MISRA [REFERRED]
SUDAMA PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
RAMESH HARIJAN VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-46] [REFERRED TO]UJJAGAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2007-12-90] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. JOG RAJ AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
DAYALA ALIAS DAYA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAYAN SHARMA @ LILOO VS. STATE (GNCT) DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-358] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. AJAI MISHRA @ TAINI [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAM YAGGA VS. RAM NIWAZ [LAWS(ALL)-2021-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
TAHIR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
BABA KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. KAMAL KUMAR SON OF SH RASIL SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR ALIAS MANOJ VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-124] [REFERRED TO]
YUBRAJ ALIAS YOGRAJ VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-3-197] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRABHAI DHIRAJLAL KACHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH PARAB VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-219] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SHANKAR SHIVARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2009-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
DEVKINANDAN ALIAS PANDEY VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2005-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR LAL CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
BABLU PASI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR GURUNG VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. LAXMIKANTA KARMAKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANTBHAI CHATURBHAI NAI & ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJRAT & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY LAMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
BOYA MARUTLA NARAYANA SWAMY VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2020-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KANTA ROY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
IRFAN MOHAMMAD MODHIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-420] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-272] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. TEK CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2016-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIN RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
PREETAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. YUSUFBHAI ALIBHAI SIPAI [LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-107] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
MIDDOLLA HARJANA THIMMAIAH VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-94] [REFERRED TO]
GORAKH SAHNI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. ASHOK [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-141] [REFERRED TO]
R. PALANISAMY VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
C MUNIAPPAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
MANI VS. STATE REP [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
FAIROZ KHAN VS. AUTHORIZED OFFICER [LAWS(KAR)-2019-8-151] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA ALIAS CHANDRAKANTH VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2012-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK DEB ROY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
OMKAR SINGH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2005-4-32] [REFERRED]
FATEY ALAIS THATE KISHKU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
GAJJU VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-194] [REFERRED TO]
ISHRAT VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
Magam Venkateswerlu VS. State of A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
GUMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
FIROZ KHAN AND ORS. VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, SUB ZONE MANDI, DISTT.MANDI [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
WASIM PAHARI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
KALLOO VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
BAGLA RANJAN SAMANTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-227] [REFERRED TO]
NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2011-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMBIR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-343] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-1] [REFERRED]
NANDESWAR DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
KISHANLAL & ANR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-117] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SHANKAR SHIVARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-205] [REFERRED]
DHANRAJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
LALAN MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
NARSINHBHAI MANIBHAI SAIJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-2-41] [REFERRED]
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-3-165] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIB BHUMIJ VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV CHARAN @ KALU VS. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-404] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2014-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
LIYAKAT VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-250] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RANJEET RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2011-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
CHAND RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI KISHAN CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
JOG RAJ VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
JABAR SINGH SAROBA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2014-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
KISHANLAL VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
MUKISH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUJUR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH BHANJ VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRATAP PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-236] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
LINGU DHARMA MESHRAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-6-118] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-178] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL @ TITU VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-155] [REFERRED TO]
KARAMVIR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-377] [REFERRED TO]
JAIVIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2011-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
INDER BAHADUR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-352] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL ALIAS KAMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. AVINASH KATOCH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
NASIB CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHED ALI VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BALDEV SINGH SON OF THUNDU RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-101] [REFERRED]
NARESH PALIWAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
LAHU KAMLAKAR PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Banerjee, J. -
(1.)It is stated that Shankar and Balu, the two brothers were admittedly having some differences and disputes over the family property but subsequently the disputes were admittedly resolved and a deed of partition was entered into between the brothers. It is in pursuance of the same however that Shankar was fencing his portion of the land when he was said to have been brutally axed by his brother Balu. Prosecutor's version in the appeal presently under consideration against the confirmation of the conviction and sentence by the High Court stands out to be the truth is stronger than fiction, more so by reason of involvement of blood relations.
(2.)The prosecution case proceeds on the basis that on 8th July 1984, while Shankar was putting the fencing round his plot, he was brutally axed, resulting in his death. It has been the definite case for the prosecution that the axe blow was given by Balu, the younger brother and in support of its case placed on witness-box two material witnesses - one of whom however was declared hostile, since the case in the First Information Report stands completely contradicted. The other witness is said to be an independent witness though said to be related to both the brothers. This particular witness (PW 4) while foisting liability on to the other brother has taken recourse to certain circumstances which prompted him to depose as regards to identify the killer. The details thereof would be dealt with immediately hereafter, but before so doing it would be convenient to note the well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence as regards the acceptability of circumstantial evidence and the role of the law courts in regard thereto :
(3.)The word of caution introduced in the judgment of this Court about five decades ago in that direction however still stands as an acceptable guide. This Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343) stated :
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
(2.)The prosecution case proceeds on the basis that on 8th July 1984, while Shankar was putting the fencing round his plot, he was brutally axed, resulting in his death. It has been the definite case for the prosecution that the axe blow was given by Balu, the younger brother and in support of its case placed on witness-box two material witnesses - one of whom however was declared hostile, since the case in the First Information Report stands completely contradicted. The other witness is said to be an independent witness though said to be related to both the brothers. This particular witness (PW 4) while foisting liability on to the other brother has taken recourse to certain circumstances which prompted him to depose as regards to identify the killer. The details thereof would be dealt with immediately hereafter, but before so doing it would be convenient to note the well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence as regards the acceptability of circumstantial evidence and the role of the law courts in regard thereto :
(3.)The word of caution introduced in the judgment of this Court about five decades ago in that direction however still stands as an acceptable guide. This Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343) stated :
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.