Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two appeals against the same trial court order in Special Case No.30/09. Criminal Appeal No.544/12 was filed by original accused No.1, Anant Dyaneshwar Jadhav, challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for the murder of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste. Criminal Appeal No.772/13 was filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Siddheshwar @ Tatya Jaiprakash Vadtile, Shivanand Nagnath Wadkar, Anand Nagnath Kadam, Jyotiba @ Sarja Sidram Mohite, and Bandu Murlidhar Jadhav). The incident occurred on 27/03/2009 when the deceased, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was assaulted by a group of persons. The prosecution case was that accused No.1 inflicted a fatal blow with a sword, while the other accused shared common intention. The trial court convicted accused No.1 and another accused (who did not appeal) but acquitted the others. The High Court examined the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, recovery of weapons, and motive. It found that the evidence against accused No.1 was credible and sufficient to sustain his conviction. However, the evidence against the acquitted accused was weak, with no clear proof of their presence or participation. The court held that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse and dismissed the State's appeal. The court also considered the applicability of the SC/ST Act, noting that the deceased was a member of a Scheduled Caste and the offence was committed on account of such caste, satisfying the requirements of Section 3(2)(v). The judgment was pronounced on 27/09/2017 by a division bench of Justices A.A. Sayed and Sarang V. Kotwal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Sections 302, 34 IPC - Conviction of accused No.1 upheld based on last seen evidence, motive, and recovery of weapon - The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 committed murder of the deceased, who belonged to Scheduled Caste, and that the offence was committed on account of caste prejudice - Held that the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was proper (Paras 1-31). B) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Sections 302, 34 IPC - Acquittal of accused Nos.2,4-7 confirmed - The court held that the evidence against these accused was insufficient to prove common intention or overt acts - The prosecution failed to establish their presence at the scene or participation in the crime - Held that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse and did not warrant interference (Paras 1-31).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is sustainable; Whether the acquittal of accused Nos.2,4-7 is justified.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No.544/2012 filed by accused No.1 is dismissed, confirming his conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal No.772/2013 filed by the State is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of accused Nos.2,4-7.
Law Points
- Murder
- Common Intention
- SC/ST Act
- Acquittal
- Appeal against acquittal
- Appreciation of evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Motive
- Recovery of weapon
