BABAN SHANKAR DAPHAL & ORS. V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1675 OF 2015:

BABAN SHANKAR DAPHAL & ORS. V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1675 OF 2015:

DATE: 22/01/2025

BENCH: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale

FACTS:

The deceased, Lalsaheb, was married to Kamal (PW-3), and they had three children: Sushila (PW-4), another daughter, and a son, Sanjay (PW-7). Lalsaheb had two brothers, Shankar (Accused No. 5) and Hanmant (Accused No. 6). Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Baban, Prakash, and Suresh) are Shankar's sons, while Accused No. 4 is Hanmant's son. Accused No. 7, Kalpana, is Baban's wife. The relationship between Lalsaheb and his brothers had been strained for nearly 20 years, with previous criminal complaints filed between them.

Approximately 15 days before the incident, Lalsaheb returned to his village, Brahamanwadi, from Bombay, where he worked in a mill. During this time, he sold a neem tree to Shankar Kadam (PW-8), angering Accused No. 2, Prakash, who claimed a share and objected to the sale. A heated argument ensued on September 23, 1987. On September 26, 1987, around 6:00 PM, while returning home with his son Sanjay (PW-7), Lalsaheb was attacked by Prakash, who struck him on the head with a stick. Kamal (PW-3) tried to intervene but was dragged away by Accused No. 7, Kalpana, allowing other accused to join the assault. Lalsaheb sustained severe injuries, including a fractured arm, and collapsed. Kamal and her daughters carried Lalsaheb home and informed the Police Patil, but efforts to transport him to the hospital failed due to a lack of transport. Lalsaheb succumbed to his injuries that night around 11:30 PM.

The following morning, Sushila (PW-4) filed a complaint at the Satara Taluka Police Station, leading PSI Inas Kuris (PW-9) to register a case under IPC Sections 148, 302, and 323 read with Section 149. The investigation included an inquest, evidence collection from the scene, and recovery of sticks and a bloodstained shirt handed over by Accused No. 7, Kalpana. Forensic and post-mortem reports were added to the evidence. On September 27, 1987, the accused were arrested, with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 leading police to additional evidence. The case proceeded to the Sessions Court, where charges against Accused Nos. 5 and 6 abated due to their deaths. The remaining accused pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution presented nine witnesses. However, the Trial Court, citing insufficient evidence, acquitted all accused on March 3, 1994. The State appealed the acquittal, and the High Court, after reappraising the evidence, found that the Trial Court had inadequately assessed its significance. Highlighting that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not undermine the prosecution's case unless critical, the High Court reversed the acquittal. It convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 5,000 each, with an additional year of imprisonment in default. The present appeal was made by the appellant challenging the judgement passed by the High Court of Bombay.

ISSUES:

The main issue of this case was the question of credibility of the witnesses produce before the Court. The witnesses produced are related by blood to the deceased and Court is urged to examine the personal interest of the witnesses in this case to ascertain whether the judgement of the High Court was valid.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASIONG:

The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court of Bombay, convicting the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 5,000.

The Court relied on the statements made by the witnesses, which was corroborated by the medical reports presented and interpreted accurately by the High Court. The Court praise the correct interpretation of the medical reports made by the High Court and criticised the Trial Court’s carelessness in this regard. The Supreme Court also stated that High Court rightly emphasized that the Trial Court's approach contradicted the established principle that the benefit of the doubt must rest on logical and solid grounds. Acquittals cannot be based on mere speculation or hypothetical inconsistencies when the overall evidence clearly indicates the accused's guilt.  This Court has consistently held that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony should not detract from the credibility of their accounts. Likewise, medical evidence should serve as a tool to support eyewitness testimony rather than as the sole basis for determining facts. The High Court followed these principles in evaluating the evidence, ensuring its conclusions were based on solid legal reasoning, said the Court. The savage nature of the attack and the coordinated actions of the accused clearly indicated their intent to inflict grievous harm, resulting in the victim's death. The Trial Court's acquittal not only weakened confidence in the justice system but also conveyed a concerning message about the accountability for such heinous crimes. Finally the SC stated “The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim” pointing out the false premise on which the trial court made their decision.

ANALYSIS:

 It was blatantly obvious that the Trial Court in their judgement had failed to correctly evaluate the witness statements made by the witnesses and also further wrongly interpreted the meaning of the word ‘interested’ in the context of witnesses. Furthermore sheer the lack of care while interpreting the post-mortem report also heavily influenced the judgement. In contrast, the High Court identified the heinous intentional acts of the appellant and decreed a fair judgement. The Supreme Court, took their time in praising the care taken by the in its examination of all the witnesses and also the evidence submitted in the Court. The appeal was rightly dismissed as the Supreme Court identified that the witnesses and material evidence corroborated the conviction of the appellant without a shadow of a doubt. The Court was also aware that Trial Court’s decision would set an incredibly bad precedent and it could case the public to lose confidence in the judiciary.