NDLI: Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Evidence Evidential standards Oral evidence and medical evidence Proof beyond reasonable doubt Test Identification Parade
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Case Disposed Off
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307 – Prosecution case that six accused persons armed with various weapons, on account of some old enmity, assaulted PW-2 and his brother – A-1 was caught red-handed but other accused persons managed to flee from the spot – Injured were taken to hospital where brother of PW-2 succumbed to the injuries, however, PW-2 survived – Trial court and High Court convicted all the accused on charges of murder and attempt to murder – SLP preferred by A-4 dismissed by another Bench of Supreme Court – Instant appeal concerned with the appeals filed by the other accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 – Whether the Courts below were right in convicting the accused- appellants and whether the prosecution proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Deceased, the brother of PW-2, gave statement to the police – In the said statement the deceased did not state the names of A-2 and A-3 – Also, PW-2 in the supplementary statement stated names of A-2 and A-3, but he neither specifically attributed any overt acts to accused nor attributed any weapon used by them – Further, neither there was any recovery of weapon nor there was any expert opinion against A-2 and A-3 – Oral testimony of PW-2 without independent corroboration cannot be basis for the conviction – Both the Courts went wrong in finding A- 2 and A-3 guilty – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A-2 and A-3 beyond all reasonable doubt – Insofar as A-1 is concerned, PW-18-doctor who examined the body of the deceased stated that 27 injuries were received by the deceased – The injuries were attributable to a sharp weapon – A-1 was caught red-handed with chopper (sharp weapon) which is corroborated with the evidence of PWs, panch witness for the arrest, seizure of weapons, clothes and also in terms of expert evidence – Thus, prosecution successfully proved the guilt of A-1 beyond reasonable doubt – Insofar as involvement of accused A-5 and A-6 is concerned, they are named in the FIR as well as in the alleged oral declaration by the deceased – Evidence of the doctor and injuries sustained by the deceased clearly established the guilt of the A-5 and A-6 – Prosecution established the fact of involvement and the guilt of accused A-5 and A-6 beyond reasonable doubt –Conviction and sentence against A-2, A-3 set aside – However, conviction and sentence u/s.302 IPC w.r.t. A-1 and conviction and sentence u/s.307 r/w.34 IPC w.r.t A-5 and A-6 maintained.Evidence – Oral evidence and medical evidence – Which one has precedence over the other – Held: Oral evidence takes precedence over the medical evidence unless the latter completely refutes any possibility of such occurrence.Evidence – Evidential standards – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Held: The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt – Accused has a profound right not to be convicted for an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – The law does not permit the court to convict the accused based on suspicion or on the basis of preponderance of probability.Evidence – Test Identification Parade – Necessity of – Held: The necessity of holding Test Identification Parade arises only when the accused are not previously known to each other – The Test identification Parade is not a substantial piece of evidence, but is useful for corroboration with the other evidence – It is a rule of prudence – The Test Identification Parade, even if it is held may not be considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 70
Petitioner	Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar
Respondent	The State Of Maharashtra
SCR	[2018] 1 S.C.R. 709
Judgement Date	2018-01-30
Case Number	1301

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Vishwanatha Vs. The State of Karnataka By The Secretary, Home Department

Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Essa@ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Stf, Cbi Mumbai, Part-ii

Vijayan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala

Mahabir Vs. The State of Delhi

Ram Babu Vs. State of U.p.

R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala.

P. Sasikumar Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Vishwanatha Vs. The State of Karnataka By The Secretary, Home Department

Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Essa@ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Stf, Cbi Mumbai, Part-ii

Vijayan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala

Mahabir Vs. The State of Delhi

Ram Babu Vs. State of U.p.

R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala.

P. Sasikumar Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra