Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the acquittal of nine accused in a murder and conspiracy case. The accused were charged under sections 120-B read with 302 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for conspiring to murder and murdering one P.G. Bhaskaran, the production in‑charge of Carona Sahu Company at Jogeshwari. The prosecution case was that disgruntled workers of the company, influenced by accused 7 and belonging to Dr. Datta Samant's union, were opposed to a wage settlement brokered by the deceased in January 1983, as it threatened their union's existence. This led them to conspire to kill Bhaskaran. On 23 January 1983, at about 6:30 a.m., when the deceased was being picked up from his residence by a police constable and a watchman, he was attacked by accused 1, 2 and 3 with knives. His wife, PW-33 Sharda Bhaskaran, witnessed the assault from the building passage and identified the assailants. The deceased was rushed to Cooper Hospital but succumbed to his injuries at 7:30 a.m. The trial court, in Sessions Case No. 293 of 1983, acquitted all accused on 11‑12 August 1986, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In appeal, the State argued that the acquittal was perverse, as the trial judge ignored credible evidence of conspiracy and the eyewitness testimony of PW‑33, a natural witness, and erroneously rejected identification parade evidence. The State relied on R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821, contending that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and can be inferred from circumstances. The accused, on the other hand, defended the acquittal, submitting that no interference was warranted unless the judgment was perverse, that there was no evidence of conspiracy, and that PW‑33's evidence was discrepant and rightly discarded, with no recovery of weapons or blood‑stained clothes. The High Court bench of Ranjana Desai and D.B. Bhosale, JJ. heard the matter and the oral judgment recorded arguments but the text of the judgment as available ends abruptly before the court's analysis and decision. The final outcome of the appeal is therefore not known from the provided extract.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused, and whether the prosecution proved the charges of criminal conspiracy under section 120-B and murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 112
Criminal Appeal No.963 of 1986
Ranjana Desai, D.B. Bhosale
S.S. Tatkare, P.P. Hudlikar
1. Suresh Ambaji Sawant, 2. Faiyazkhan @ Babu s/o. Karimkhan, 3. Mohamed Hussein Sk.Ramzanali, 4. Ashok Baburao Basankar, 5. Abdul Gafoor Bandoo Karimsha Patel, 6. Rawloo Vithal Mayekar, 7. Mansing Mahadeo Bhosale, 8. Vishwanath Baburao Bhojne, 9. Khashiram Vithoba More
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused for murder and criminal conspiracy.
Filing Reason
The State contended that the trial court's judgment was perverse, ignoring credible evidence of conspiracy and eyewitness testimony.
Previous Decisions
The trial court acquitted the accused on 11-12 August 1986, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Whether the prosecution had proved the charge of criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the evidence of PW-33, the sole eyewitness, was reliable and credible.
Whether the identification parade and other corroborative evidence supported the prosecution case.
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that the trial court judgment was perverse because it wrongly ignored credible evidence of conspiracy; conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances as held in R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821; PW-33 Sharda Bhaskaran is a natural witness who identified accused 1-3 in the identification parade; minor discrepancies in her testimony should not discredit her account; and the evidence of PW-14, PW-15, and PW-31 provided sufficient corroboration.
Accused argued that the acquittal should not be disturbed unless perverse; there was no evidence of meeting of minds or pre-planning to prove conspiracy; PW-33's evidence was discrepant and rightly rejected; and there was no recovery of weapons or blood-stained clothes to corroborate the assault.
Judgment Excerpts
the prosecution story may be briefly stated. Carona Sahu Company is situated at Gunfa Road, Jogeshwari (for short, "C.S.C."). PW-19 Ravindranath was working as the Factory Manager of C.S.C. during the period 1972 till 1/5/1985. Since 1979, C.S.C. Employees Union was the recognised union. In or about 1981 onwards, Dr. Datta Samant’s Union known as Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union tried to win over the workers of C.S.C.
On 23/1/1983 at about 6.30 a.m., as per the practice, one constable PW-14 Vilas Deshmukh along with watchman PW-15 Kailasnath Pathak left the C.S.C. in a taxi driven by PW-12 Abdul Sattar to bring the deceased from his residence situated at Dr. Rane’s building, Natvar Nagar Road No.1.
In June, 1982, he was assaulted by workers of Dr. Datta Samant’s Union.
The settlement was not liked by the workers supported by Dr. Datta Samant’s Union. They were, therefore, against the deceased. According to the prosecution, on account of the settlement, the very existence of Dr. Datta Samant’s Union in the C.S.C. was affected and, therefore, the disgruntled workers of C.S.C. wanted to get rid of the deceased.
Procedural History
The nine accused were charged with offences under sections 120-B read with 302 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were tried in Sessions Case No.293 of 1983 by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay. By judgment and order dated 11th and 12th August 1986, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of all charges. The State of Maharashtra preferred Criminal Appeal No.963 of 1986 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 120-B, Section 302, Section 34
