Consistent and corroborated eyewitness testimonies established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Plea of alibi must be conclusively proven – Mere assignment of duty without proof of presence elsewhere is insufficient. Acquittal of one accused based on a proven alibi does not affect the conviction of others where independent evidence confirms their involvement. (Paras: 8, 9, 12, 13, 15)

Supreme Court dismissed the appeals – Upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of accused nos. 1, 2, 5, and 9. Directed accused no. 9 (Tanaji) to surrender within one month to serve the remaining sentence. Clarified that accused nos. 1, 2, and 5, having already served their sentences, need not return to custody.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI) – Article 136

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161, Section 162

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 148, Section 149, Section 302

Subjects:

• Life Imprisonment

• Conviction

• Alibi

• Eyewitness Testimony

• Acquittal

• Common Intention

• Assault

Nature of the Litigation: Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Sentence Confirmation

Remedy Sought: Accused-Appellants sought acquittal – Challenged High Court’s judgment confirming conviction and life imprisonment

Reason for Filing the Case: Appellants challenged the rejection of their alibi and the reliance on eyewitness testimonies – Alleged contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence

Prior Decisions: Trial Court convicted the accused under IPC Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 – Sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court confirmed the conviction vide judgment dated 24th September 2010

Issues:

a) Whether the conviction under IPC Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 was justified? b) Whether the accused's plea of alibi was established? c) Whether the prosecution’s reliance on eyewitness testimonies was credible despite alleged contradictions?

d) Whether the failure to examine other alleged eyewitnesses weakened the prosecution’s case?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellants: a) Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent – Material omissions in their statements under Section 161 CrPC b) Accused no. 9 (Tanaji) was on police duty at the time of the incident – Alibi supported by police records c) Failure to examine other eyewitnesses undermined the prosecution’s case

• Respondent (State of Maharashtra): a) Consistent and credible testimonies of three eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5) b) No material contradictions or omissions – Minor discrepancies do not affect overall reliability c) Alibi of accused no. 9 (Tanaji) not established – Police records only showed duty assignment, not physical presence elsewhere