Latesh Karlekar vs. State of Maharashtra: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Murder Conviction and Appeal

The case of Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar & Others vs. The State of Maharashtra is a landmark criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court of India, addressing issues of conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment primarily dealt with multiple appeals from individuals convicted in a murder case. The Court analyzed evidence, examined inconsistencies, and decided on the validity of the convictions handed down by the High Court.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred on December 10, 2006, between 10:20 and 10:30 PM in Mumbai. The complainant, Vitthal Hingane (PW-2), and his brother, Jagdish Hingane (the deceased), were returning from the office of Uttam Gite, a local political worker. While walking near Saint Pius Lane, six accused individuals, armed with deadly weapons including choppers, swords, and sickles, attacked them. The attack resulted in severe injuries to both, and Jagdish Hingane succumbed to his wounds.

The accused included:

• Sunil Chandanshiva (Accused No. 1)
• Vijay Nirmal (Accused No. 2)
• Latesh Karlekar (Accused No. 3)
• Sandeep Bhosale (Accused No. 4)
• Vishnu Bule (Accused No. 5)
• Anil Gadekar (Accused No. 6)

Police personnel on patrol duty, including PW-11 (Dyaneshwar Ladse), heard the victims’ screams and rushed to the scene. They apprehended Sunil Chandanshiva with a blood-stained chopper, while the other accused fled. The complainant was taken to a hospital where he later recorded his statement.

Arguments by the Parties

Arguments by the Prosecution

• The prosecution asserted that the accused persons acted in a premeditated manner, forming an unlawful assembly with the intention of committing murder.
• It presented medical evidence confirming multiple deep injuries on the deceased, consistent with the weapons recovered.
• The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies, particularly from PW-2 (Vitthal Hingane) and PW-11 (Dyaneshwar Ladse), who directly linked the accused to the crime.

Arguments by the Defense

• The defense contended that the identification of the accused was unreliable, arguing that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.
• It challenged the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the weapons used.
• It was argued that the police had manipulated the investigation, failing to record an initial statement that named all the accused.
• The defense also raised the point that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not named in the first statement given by the victim.

High Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the convictions as follows:

• It upheld the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 302 IPC.
• It converted the conviction of Accused Nos. 4 to 6 from Section 302 IPC to Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), considering their role as secondary to the primary attackers.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence, considering contradictions in witness statements and procedural lapses. Key observations included:

On the Delay in Naming Accused Nos. 2 and 3

The Court noted:

• “The prosecution has failed to explain why the deceased’s first statement did not mention Accused Nos. 2 and 3.”
• “A delay in disclosure may cast doubt on the reliability of an eyewitness, particularly when a motive for false implication exists.”

On Test Identification Parade (TIP)

The Court observed:

• “The necessity of TIP arises only when accused persons are strangers to the witnesses. In this case, the prosecution contended that the accused were known, but there are gaps in the evidence.”

On the Conviction Under Section 302 IPC

The Court analyzed the role of each accused, finding that:

• Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 6 were directly involved in the fatal assault and deserved conviction under Section 302 IPC.
• Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were given the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in evidence against them.
• Accused Nos. 4 to 6 were correctly convicted under Section 307 IPC.

Supreme Court’s Final Ruling

Based on its findings, the Supreme Court:

• Acquitted Accused Nos. 2 and 3, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Upheld the conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section 302 IPC, given the compelling evidence of his direct involvement.
• Confirmed the conviction of Accused Nos. 5 and 6 under Section 307 IPC, as their role was established through eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.
• Directed the immediate release of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 if not required in any other case.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This case is significant for its interpretation of:

• The evidentiary value of eyewitness accounts when there are inconsistencies.
• The importance of properly recording statements in criminal investigations.
• The necessity of TIP in cases where accused persons are not well known to the victims.
• The balance between ensuring justice for the victim and preventing wrongful convictions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Latesh Karlekar vs. State of Maharashtra reiterates the importance of rigorous legal scrutiny in criminal trials. It reinforces the principle that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt and highlights the consequences of procedural lapses in investigations. The judgment ensures that justice is served for both the victims and the accused by affirming convictions where evidence was strong and acquitting those where doubt persisted.

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

Download Judgment: Latesh @ Dadu Babura vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-01-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Amitava Roy
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2018
See all petitions in 2018 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