Page 1

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.

1

Page 2

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.

2

Page 3

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.

3