Murder Conviction Partially Overturned: Supreme Court Grants Benefit of Doubt to Two Accused

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Others v. State of Maharashtra, delivered a crucial judgment on October 4, 2016, addressing a long-standing criminal case involving charges of murder, unlawful assembly, and grievous hurt. The appeal was filed by eight individuals challenging their conviction under Sections 147, 149, 302 read with 149, 324, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Bombay High Court had overturned their acquittal by the trial court and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, upheld the conviction of six appellants but granted the benefit of the doubt to two of them, leading to their acquittal. The judgment highlights the Court’s approach in evaluating the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the role of unlawful assemblies, and the principles governing appeals against acquittal.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around the murder of one Bibhishan Vithoba Khadle and the injuries inflicted on six others. According to the prosecution, the accused were part of an unlawful assembly that attacked the complainant’s party due to a dispute linked to local elections.

The incident took place on November 13, 1988, at noon, when the accused allegedly set fire to a house, forcing the victims to come out, and then attacked them with swords, iron rods, and axes. The prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses, including injured victims, to establish the accused’s role in the crime.

Arguments Presented

Prosecution’s Case

• The accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant’s party with deadly weapons.
• The motive behind the attack was political enmity related to Panchayat and Cooperative Society elections.
• Several witnesses, including injured persons, identified the accused and detailed their roles in the assault.
• Medical evidence supported the claim that the deceased suffered fatal injuries, and six others were seriously injured.

Defense Arguments

• The trial court’s acquittal was based on inconsistencies in witness statements.
• The prosecution failed to explain an injury suffered by one of the accused, raising doubts about the sequence of events.
• The delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) indicated possible fabrication of evidence.
• There were contradictions and omissions in witness testimonies, affecting their credibility.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the legal principles surrounding appeals against acquittal and the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. Key observations included:

• On Reversal of Acquittal: The Court held that an appellate court could overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s findings were perverse or based on an unreasonable interpretation of evidence.
• On Eyewitness Testimony: The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in witness statements should not overshadow the core truth of the case.
• On the Role of Unlawful Assembly: The Court reaffirmed that when a crime is committed in furtherance of a common object, all members of the assembly can be held liable under Section 149 IPC.

The Court stated: “The approach of the trial court in rejecting the entire evidence comprising of injured eyewitnesses was perverse. The trial court ignored the principles by mechanically rejecting the evidence of all the witnesses.”

Key Findings

After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court:

• Upheld the conviction of six appellants, affirming their life sentences.
• Granted the benefit of the doubt to two accused (Babu Rama Berad and Balu Naradeo Berad) and acquitted them.
• Allowed two convicted appellants (Nivrutti Sakharam Koyale and Krishna Sakharam Koyale) to apply for remission of their remaining sentence due to old age.

Legal Precedents Cited

The Court relied on several landmark judgments to support its findings:

• Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964): Established that eyewitness testimony should not be discarded merely due to minor inconsistencies.
• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002): Stated that courts must assess whether discrepancies in witness statements affect the core credibility of the case.
• Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014): Addressed the legal framework for filing and investigating FIRs.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces several principles of criminal law:

• Judicial Scrutiny in Acquittal Appeals: The judgment clarifies that appellate courts must carefully review the reasoning of trial courts before overturning acquittals.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The ruling underscores that eyewitness accounts from injured victims hold strong probative value, even if minor inconsistencies exist.
• Collective Liability in Unlawful Assembly: The decision strengthens the interpretation of Section 149 IPC, ensuring accountability for group offenses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Others v. State of Maharashtra provides a balanced view on criminal liability in cases involving group violence. While it upheld the conviction of most accused, it ensured that individuals who did not have clear roles in the crime were given the benefit of the doubt.

This ruling serves as a precedent in criminal jurisprudence, guiding courts in evaluating witness testimony, reversing acquittals, and interpreting collective liability under the law. By ensuring justice for both the victims and the accused, the decision strengthens the integrity of India’s judicial system.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bhagwan Jagannath Ma vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-10-2016.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Gopala Gowda
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category