NDLI: Motiram Padu Joshi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	148 and 302 r/w s.149 1860 – ss.147 Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) 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	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148 and 302 r/w s.149 – Factionrivalry – Murder – Appeal against conviction – On the fateful day,victim-deceased was lying on the cot in the courtyard and PWs 3and 4 were sitting near him – PW-2 went inside and was takingmeal – Appellants along with other accused armed with deadlyweapons like swords, knife, sticks and motor cycle chain came tothe courtyard of the house of deceased – A-3 and A-8 assaultedthe deceased with sword on his head, A-5 attacked with sword onhis legs, A-7 attacked with knife on his foot and legs – Other accusedattacked deceased with motor cycle chain and sticks – PW- 3 and 4got frightened and ran inside the house and stood near the windowand witnessed the incident – Deceased was grievously injured andwas rushed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries – Trialcourt held that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of accusedbeyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused – High Courtheld that evidence of PWs 2 to 4 as to the overt act of accused wasconsistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery ofweapons and reversed the acquittal of all accused except A-2 – Onappeal, plea of appellants was that evidence of PW-2 was notbelievable as he was present in the house and did not go to rescuehis brother and remained mute spectator – Held: Evidence of witnessis not to be disbelieved simply because he has not reacted in aparticular manner – Likewise, the relationship of PW-2 with thedeceased cannot be the reason for doubting the testimony of PW-2– Medical evidence also lent assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to4 – Prompt registration of FIR and recovery of incriminating weaponson disclosure statements of accused also strengthened theprosecution case – Trial court did not properly appreciate theevidence and its findings are perverse – When the approach of thetrial court is perverse, in an appeal against the order of acquittal, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence –As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importance toinsignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs of thebody with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to why theyhave not reacted in a particular manner and while doing so, thetrial court failed to appreciate the substratum of the prosecutioncase – High Court on being satisfied that the conclusion reachedby the trial court was erroneous reversed the order of acquittalrecorded by the trial court – There is no ground to interfere with thejudgment of the High Court – The conviction of the appellants unders.302 r/w s.149 is confirmed and the sentence of life imprisonmentimposed upon each of them is confirmed.Criminal Law – Evidence – FIR – Non-mention of names ofeye-witnesses in FIR – Effect on prosecution case – Evidence ofPWs 3 and 4 is sought to be assailed on the ground that their nameswere not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and thatthey are interested witnesses – Held: Deceased was critically injuredand when he was taken to the police station, on seeing his seriouscondition, deceased was sent to the hospital along with policeconstable – PW-2 remained in the police station to lodge thecomplaint and his statement was recorded – His brother having beencritically injured, PW-2 must have been in a disturbed mind andmust have been in a hurry to rush to the hospital to save his brother– Thus, non-mention of the names of eye witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) inthe FIR should be examined in the situation in which PW-2 wasplaced – FIR..Evidence – Reaction of witness in a particular manner – Held:On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and theirevidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has notacted in a particular manner – Witness.Appeal – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference,discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 594
Petitioner	Motiram Padu Joshi And Others
Respondent	The State Of Maharashtra
SCR	[2018] 9 S.C.R. 267
Judgement Date	2018-07-10
Case Number	1479

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

Motiram Padu Joshi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Bhaskarrao and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Soyebbhai Yusufbhai Bharani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Surendra Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Sarvesh Narain Shukla Vs. Daroga Singh & Ors.

Ganesh Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Shantabai & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra

Holiram Bordoloi Vs. State of Assam

Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.p.

Motiram Padu Joshi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Motiram Padu Joshi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Bhaskarrao and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Soyebbhai Yusufbhai Bharani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Surendra Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Sarvesh Narain Shukla Vs. Daroga Singh & Ors.

Ganesh Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Shantabai & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra

Holiram Bordoloi Vs. State of Assam

Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.p.

Motiram Padu Joshi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra