BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The trial court erroneously rejected the entire testimony of injured eye witnesses based on trivial contradictions and alleged interest, which constituted a perverse approach. Five eye witnesses consistently named appellants A-1 to A-7, assigning them specific roles in the assault. Their conviction under ss. 302/149 IPC is sustained. Benefit of doubt is given to A-10 and A-11 as they were not specifically named by relevant witnesses.

Parties
Appellants: Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors.; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Conviction, Setting Aside Trial Court Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Murder, Unlawful Assembly, Acquittal and Conviction, Appellate Review, Witness Credibility
Criminal Law Murder Unlawful Assembly Acquittal and Conviction Appellate Review Witness Credibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors.

Appellants

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Conviction, Setting Aside Trial Court Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of appellants under ss. 147, 149, 302 r/w 149, 324, 326 IPC is justified
  2. 2 Whether the trial court's rejection of injured eye-witness testimony was perverse
  3. 3 Scope of appellate interference with acquittal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court erroneously rejected the entire testimony of injured eye witnesses based on trivial contradictions and alleged interest, which constituted a perverse approach. Five eye witnesses consistently named appellants A-1 to A-7, assigning them specific roles in the assault. Their conviction under ss. 302/149 IPC is sustained. Benefit of doubt is given to A-10 and A-11 as they were not specifically named by relevant witnesses.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed.

Orders

  • Appellants Babu Rama Berad and Balu Naradeo Berad (A-10, A-11) acquitted; to be released unless required in other cases.
  • Appeal of other appellants dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.