Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the murder of D.L. Marathe, a tenant in Vinodwadi, Thane, who resisted vacating his room unless provided equal alternate space during a redevelopment project handled by a builder firm in which original accused No.6 Ajit Mukund Joshi was a partner. On 13 February 1987 between 8:45 to 9:30 pm, the deceased was forcibly abducted from his residence by a group of persons who travelled in two hired rickshaws, assaulted him, and dumped him injured in one rickshaw. The rickshaw driver Dilip Pathakji (PW1) was threatened at knifepoint to proceed but eventually stopped upon noticing blood; the assailants fled, and the victim died. The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy among the builder-accused and the assailants to eliminate Marathe and to obtain a document surrendering his tenancy. The trial court convicted only Ajit Mukund Joshi under Section 467 IPC for forging the surrender document, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine, while acquitting all accused of charges under Sections 120-B, 364 read with 34, and 302 read with 34 IPC. The State appealed the acquittals, and the convicted accused appealed his conviction. The High Court heard arguments on the identification evidence, noting that PW1 and PW3 did not name the accused in court, and PW5 turned hostile, but the text provided ends before the court’s final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court rightly acquitted the accused of charges of conspiracy and murder due to lack of identification; Whether the conviction of accused No.6 under Section 467 IPC for forgery was justified.
Law Points
- Evidentiary value of prior identification in FIR when witness fails to identify accused in court
- Requirement of independent proof of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC
- Proof of homicidal death not in dispute
- Essentials of forgery under Section 467 IPC when document of surrender of tenancy alleged to be forged
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (05) 27
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1989 and Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 1988
D. G. Deshpande, V. K. Tahilramani
V. B. Konde-Deshmukh (APP for State), S. V. Kotwal (appointed for accused/appellant)
State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1989) and Ajit Mukund Joshi (in Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 1988)
Sanjay Sadu alias Bhau Dalvi, Arun Ashok Nakhate, Krishna Shankar Patil, Santosh Bhagwan Ambekar, Vasant Tukaram Dalvi, Ajit Mukund Joshi (in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1989) and State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 1988)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against acquittal and conviction arising out of a case involving murder, criminal conspiracy, and forgery.
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the acquittal of all accused for murder and conspiracy; accused No.6 Ajit Mukund Joshi sought to set aside his conviction under Section 467 IPC.
Filing Reason
The State appealed against the acquittal, and the convicted accused appealed against his conviction.
Previous Decisions
The VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, by judgment dated 4 November 1988, convicted original accused No.6 under Section 467 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine, and acquitted all accused of charges under Sections 120-B, 364 r/w 34, and 302 r/w 34 IPC.
Issues
Whether the trial court rightly acquitted the accused of the charges of conspiracy and murder due to lack of identification evidence?
Whether the conviction of accused No.6 under Section 467 IPC for forgery of a tenancy surrender document was justified?
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the evidence of PW1 (rickshaw driver) and PW3 (neighbour who informed police) along with the forged document proved the conspiracy, and that the accused who travelled with PW1 should be convicted for murder given the multiple injuries on the deceased.
The defence argued that PW1 failed to name any of the accused in his court testimony, despite giving names in the FIR, and that the contents of the FIR could not be used as substantive evidence to identify the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case so far as conspiracy and murder is concerned.
P.W.1 Dilip Harihar Pathakji, though had given full description of the incident, he did not name any of the accused in his evidence, though he had given their names in the FIR along with description.
The defence of the accused was of total denial and, according to accused No.6, deceased Marathe had executed Article 23 in his presence and in the presence of attesting witnesses and there was no forgery.
Procedural History
The trial court (VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane) by judgment dated 4 November 1988 convicted original accused No.6 Ajit Mukund Joshi under Section 467 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine, while acquitting all accused of charges under Sections 120-B, 364 r/w 34, and 302 r/w 34 IPC. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1989 against the acquittal, and accused No.6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 1988 against his conviction. Both appeals were heard together by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 120-B, 364 r/w 34, 302 r/w 34, 467
