ISHWAR YADAV PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 1300 of 2010, Judgment Date: Jan 31, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1300/2010


ISHWAR YADAV PATIL                                              APPELLANT(S)

                                VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                           RESPONDENT(S)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

      The appellant was convicted under Section 302  read  with  Section  34
IPC by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.77  of
1991 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2.    In the impugned order the High Court has sustained the conviction.  In
paragraph 26, the following circumstances have been highlighted by the  High
Court:-

i.          That, it was deceased Suresh who 15 days prior to  the  incident
informed Manohar  (PW-13)  that  his  hybrid  Jawar  crop  was  cut  by  the
appellants and as a result, PW-13 Manohar Patil called both  the  appellants
in presence of Suresh, questioned them and  when  the  appellants  admitted,
Manohar PW-13 beat both the appellants.  So, this becomes motive as  because
of deceased Surech, the theft committed by the  appellants  came  to  light.
The appellants had to suffer thrashing at the hands of PW-13 Manohar.

ii.         Second circumstance against the appellants  is  that  about  2-3
hours before the incident PW-6 Dhanraj Patil was told by deceased that  both
the appellants had given him threat of killing with sickle.

iii.  The dead body of Suresh was lying in the Wheat corp with scarf  around
his neck by which strangulation was committed.  The death of Suresh was  due
to strangulation.  It was homicidal death and  not  incidental  or  suicidal
death.

iv.         PW-12 Vaijayantabai saw the appellants near dead body  at  about
2.00 to 2.30 p.m. and on seeing Vaijayantabai and being  questioned  by  her
as to what they were doing, both the appellants ran away.

v.          As a result of  shouts  by  Vaijayantabai,  PW-8  Mukunda,  PW-9
Laxman, PW-11 Hirabai and  PW-17  Rupchand  came  running  and  asked  PW-12
Vaijayantabai what had  happened  and  she  disclosed  that  appellants  had
killed Suresh by strangulation, which was the inferecne drawn  by  her  from
the circumstances seen by her.   Her  conduct  is  relevant  in  immediately
disclosing names of the appellants.

vi.         The appellants have not given explanation as  to  why  they  had
gone to Wheat field of deceased  Suresh  and  what  they  were  doing  while
bending on the dead body and why they ran away when seen and  questioned  by
PW-12 Vaijayantabai.  This omission to explain conduct coupled  with  motive
and earlier incident becomes a strong circumstance against the appellant.

3.    We have also gone through the evidence in detail, particularly of  the
key witnesses PW.12 and PW.13.
4.    Having heard the learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  and
having gone through the evidence and judgments passed by the Sessions  Court
as well as the High Court, we do not find any ground  to  take  a  different
view.
5.    The appeal is hence dismissed.
6.    However, having regard to the fact that the appellant was a young  boy
of 19 years at the time of occurrence, we request the State to consider  his
case for remission as per guidelines.


                                                   .......................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]



                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [A.M. KHANWILKAR]
      NEW DELHI;
      JANUARY 31, 2017.