NDLI: Netaji Achyut Shinde (patil) & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, at 17:30, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the victim-deceased and inflicted serious injuries with a sword as well as by fists blows and kicks – At 17:45, police received telephone information regarding the incident – Around 19:15, deceased succumbed to injuries in hospital – Based on the complaint of PW-1, FIR was registered at 23:45 pm at police station alleging involvement of appellants-accused and one absconding person – Trial court convicted A-2 – It, however found evidence against A-1 and A-3 doubtful and acquitted them – Trial court treated the information received at 17.45 hours as a first information and discarded FIR recorded later during the night at 23:45 – It rejected the argument of accused that the eye witnesses were partisan and hence unreliable, yet based predominantly on medical evidence which read as negative in the role of A-1 and A-3 – Trial court acquitted them of charges levelled holding that in the absence of injuries of the kind attributed to these accused no finding of their culpability to warrant conviction was returned – As regards A-2, trial court held him guilty on account of his participation with absconding accused, with whom he moved away on motorcycle – High Court reversed acquittal of A-1 and A-3 and also affirmed conviction of A-2 – Hence instant appeal – Held: The consistent testimony of all the eyewitnesses was that the appellants were part of the attack; they played an active role in assaulting the deceased and chasing him, which eventually forced him to run into PW-5’s shop and collapse there – The material objects recovered from the site as well as PW-5’s shop which included bloodstains clearly supported the story of these eyewitnesses – The evidence i.e. the exhortation by these accused, their active role in attacking the deceased, chasing him and leaving the crime scene together, clinched that there was a consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result – It was this aspect which the trial court glaringly overlooked, and instead, misdirected itself grossly in focusing upon the first intimation, treating it as the FIR, and therefore, proceeding to doubt the prosecution version – The eyewitness testimonies which clearly implicated them in the crime, established their participation, and the depositions which showed that they played a part in achieving the common intention of carrying the murderous assault on the deceased was overlooked by the trial court for trivial and immaterial reasons – High Court correctly reversed the acquittal, and recorded the conviction against all the appellants. FIR: A cryptic phone call without complete information or containing part-information about the commission of a cognizable offence cannot always be treated as an FIR – A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify the offence, cannot be treated as an FIR – In the instant case, the intimation given by two individuals merely set out the bare facts of an attack; the information was incomplete; neither the name of the victim nor the names of the alleged attackers nor even the precise location where the incident occurred were mentioned – High Court, in the appeal before it, correctly inferred that the first information recorded at 17.45 hrs could not be treated as an FIR – In these circumstances, the details of the event which occurred, the nature of the attack, the place of the attack, the names and identities of the accused were set out fully when PW-1 recorded the statement at 23.45 hrs that constitutes the FIR.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 200
Petitioner	Netaji Achyut Shinde (patil) & Anr.
Respondent	The State Of Maharashtra
SCR	[2021] 3 S.C.R. 255
Judgement Date	2021-03-23
Case Number	121

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

Netaji Achyut Shinde (patil) & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Sanjay Puran Bagde & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Bur Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Babasaheb Apparao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Bastiram Vs. State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raja Etc.

Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot Vs. State of Gujarat

Vijay Shankar Shinde & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra

State of M.p. Vs. Wazir Khan & Anr.

Netaji Achyut Shinde (patil) & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Netaji Achyut Shinde (patil) & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sanjay Puran Bagde & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Bur Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Babasaheb Apparao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Bastiram Vs. State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raja Etc.

Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot Vs. State of Gujarat

Vijay Shankar Shinde & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra

State of M.p. Vs. Wazir Khan & Anr.

Netaji Achyut Shinde (patil) & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra