Baban Shankar Daphal vs The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1675 OF 2015

BABAN SHANKAR DAPHAL & ORS. ..…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 2(a) of

the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate

Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, read with Section 379 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 19731 seeking to challenge the impugned

judgment and final order dated 25.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal

No. 352 of 1994 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

whereby High Court convicted Accused No. 1 to 4 (appellants

herein) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2025.01.23 10:44:54 IST Reason: 1 CrPC Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 1 of 23 Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18602 and sentenced them to

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000

each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

year; and vide the same judgment, the High Court acquitted

Accused No. 7.

2. For the sake of brevity and continuity, the parties are

referred to by their original nomenclature. Lalsaheb is the

deceased who was married to Kamal (PW-3), and they had three

children: a daughter, Sushila (PW-4), another daughter who has

not been examined and a son, Sanjay (PW-7). Deceased 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. During the proceedings,

Accused Nos. 5 and 6 passed away, leading to the abatement of

charges against them.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the relationship

between the deceased and his brothers had been strained for

nearly 20 years before the incident. There had been previous

criminal complaints filed between them. The deceased worked

2 IPC Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 2 of 23 in a mill in Bombay and returned to his native village,

Brahamanwadi, about 15 days before the incident. During this

time, he sold a neem tree to one Shankar Kadam (PW-8). This

sale angered Accused No. 2, who confronted PW-8, claiming a

share in the tree and objecting to its felling. The deceased denied

Accused No. 2’s claim, resulting in a heated argument between

them three days before the incident, on September 23, 1987.

4. On September 26, 1987, around 6:00 PM, deceased and

his son Sanjay were returning from their field to their cattle

shed, where PW-3 was milking the cattle. After feeding the

cattle, deceased and PW-7 started walking towards their house.

About 20 paces away, Accused No. 2 attacked the deceased with

a stick, striking him on the head and causing him to collapse.

PW-3 rushed to his aid, shielding his body from further assault.

Shortly after, Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6 arrived at the scene.

Accused No. 7, Kalpana, dragged Kamal (PW-3) away by her

hair, enabling the others to assault the deceased further with

sticks.

5. Hearing the commotion, PW-4 rushed to the spot but was

prevented from intervening by Accused Nos. 5 and 6. They

threatened her with dire consequences if they tried to help.

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 3 of 23 During the attack, Accused No. 1 twisted the deceased’s left

hand, fracturing it. After the attackers left, PW-3 and her

daughters carried the deceased back to their house. PW-3 and

PW-7 then informed the village Police Patil, Vithal Ghorpade

(PW-6), who accompanied them back to their home and

assessed the situation. Attempts to transport the deceased to

the Civil Hospital in Satara failed due to the unavailability of a

vehicle. Deceased succumbed to his injuries around 11:30 PM

that night.

6. The following morning, PW-4 filed a complaint at the

Satara Taluka Police Station. Based on her complaint, PSI Inas

Kuris (PW-9) registered a case under Sections 148, 302, and

323 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

7. The investigation began with an inquest and the collection

of evidence from the crime scene, including bloodstained soil

and sticks. Accused No. 7, handed over Accused No. 1’s

bloodstained shirt, which was seized. On September 27, 1987,

the accused were arrested. During their interrogation, Accused

No. 2 led the police to recover a stick from his house, and

Accused No. 1 led to the recovery of two more sticks. The

forensic reports and post-mortem report were included in the

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 4 of 23 evidence. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was

filed against all seven accused.

8. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court and

before the charges were framed, the original Accused No. 5,

Shankar, passed away. Consequently, the Trial Court framed

charges against the remaining accused. Accused No.6 also

passed away during the pendency of the appeal before the High

Court. All the accused pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.

9. The prosecution presented a total of nine witnesses to

support its case. However, after evaluating the evidence, the

Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to

establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, in its

order dated March 3, 1994, the Trial Court acquitted all the

accused of the charges brought against them.

10. The Trial Court, after analysing the evidence presented

during the proceedings, acquitted the accused persons on

multiple grounds. The primary rationale provided by the Trial

Court centered around what it perceived to be serious

inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court noted that

the testimonies of key witnesses were riddled with

contradictions and failed to form a cohesive narrative regarding

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 5 of 23 the alleged incident. Witnesses who were deemed critical to

proving the prosecution’s case either did not corroborate each

other’s accounts or provided statements that were inconsistent

with other evidence on record. It noted discrepancies in the

statements of PW-3 and PW-7 regarding the time or instance at

which the deceased’s arm was twisted by Accused No. 1.

Further, the Trial Court also noted that PW-3 had failed to give

a complete testimony, to the effect that she had not deposed

about the attack on her, whereas PW-4 had deposed regarding

the attack on PW-3 by Accused No. 1, thus rendering her

testimony unreliable. The Trial Court observed that the

witnesses provided differing accounts of the timeline and

sequence of events, creating doubt about their reliability.

11. The Trial Court observed that the main eyewitnesses had

delayed reporting the incident to the police, a delay that

remained unexplained. Such a delay, according to the Trial

Court, cast doubt on the veracity of their testimonies.

Furthermore, the court expressed reservations about the

credibility of certain witnesses due to perceived motives for

falsely implicating the accused. The Trial Court emphasized that

in cases where the evidence is primarily circumstantial, the

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 6 of 23 chain of events must be unbroken and unequivocally point

towards the guilt of the accused. However, the court found that

the prosecution failed to establish such a chain, leaving

significant gaps that raised reasonable doubt about the

accused’s involvement.

12. Another foundation for the Trial Court’s reasoning was the

lack of corroborative material evidence. The Trial Court

emphasized discrepancies between the medical evidence and

the eyewitness accounts. According to the eyewitnesses, the

victim was struck multiple times on the head with sticks.

However, the post-mortem report did not document multiple

injuries on the victim’s head. The Trial Court observed that if

the victim had indeed been struck on the head with sticks it

would have resulted in multiple head injuries. Consequently,

the medical evidence failed to corroborate the eyewitness

accounts regarding the alleged repeated blows to the victim's

head.

13. The Trial Court further held that the prosecution failed to

establish a clear motive for the crime. While it was alleged that

the accused had animosity with the deceased due to a property

dispute, the Trial Court found the evidence on this aspect vague

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 7 of 23 and insufficiently corroborated. The court held that PW-8 had

not fully supported the case of the prosecution and denied that

Accused No.2 had confronted him regarding his share in the

neem tree. Further, it was held that the witnesses had given

contradictory or incomplete testimonies regarding the previous

altercations.

14. The Trial Court also observed that the overall prosecution

narrative was riddled with gaps and conjectures. For instance,

the alleged presence of certain accused at the crime scene was

not corroborated by independent evidence. On these grounds,

the Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing insufficient

evidence to convict, and believe the guilt to be have been proved

beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. In the appeal preferred by the State against the

aforementioned judgment and order of acquittal, the High Court

partly allowed the appeal.

16. The High Court conducted a detailed reappraisal of the

evidence and scrutinized the reasoning adopted by the Trial

Court. It observed that the Trial Court had failed to

appropriately assess the weight and significance of the evidence

presented by the prosecution. It noted that the Trial Court had

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 8 of 23 overly focused on minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies

while overlooking the overall credibility and corroborative

nature of their accounts.

17. It was observed by the High Court that eye-witnesses had

been cross-examined at length by the counsel for defence who

had failed to make any substantive dents in their testimonies.

Further, the inconsistencies were minor and natural. The High

Court held that discrepancy about the time or instance at which

the arm of the deceased was twisted was only a minor

contradiction and did not strike at the core of their testimonies

or create doubt about the act of twisting the arm of the deceased

by the Accused No. 1, as consistently deposed by the eye

witnesses. Further, the High Court held that merely because

PW-3 did not depose regarding the attack on her, it would not

render her entire testimony unbelievable, especially when from

the evidence of PW-3 and the other two eye witnesses it can be

inferred that Accused No. 7 had pulled PW-3’s hair and removed

her from the body of the deceased.

18. The High Court emphasized that discrepancies in the

testimonies of witnesses are not uncommon and should not

automatically lead to their rejection unless they strike at the

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 9 of 23 root of the prosecution’s case. The High Court noted that while

there were minor discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts,

these did not detract from the core narrative implicating the

accused. The testimonies of key witnesses were consistent on

material points, such as the presence of the accused at the

scene and the manner of assault. According to the High Court,

the Trial Court erred in placing undue emphasis on trivial

inconsistencies rather than evaluating the evidence as a whole.

19. The High Court also underscored the importance of

evaluating the testimony of witnesses in light of the surrounding

circumstances. It noted that the Trial Court had failed to

consider the natural conduct of witnesses who might delay

reporting an incident due to fear or trauma, or unavailability of

resources like any vehicle for transportation as in the present

case. In this context, the High Court observed that the delay in

filing the complaint and recording witness statements had been

adequately explained by the prosecution. It held that the Trial

Court’s failure to appreciate these explanations resulted in an

erroneous conclusion about the credibility of the witnesses.

20. The High Court further criticized the Trial Court for failing

to appreciate the medical evidence in its proper context. While

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 10 of 23 the Trial Court had dismissed the forensic reports as

inconclusive, the High Court found that these reports, when

read in conjunction with other evidence, provided significant

corroboration of the prosecution’s case. The post-mortem report

detailed five ante-mortem injuries, out of which three were over

left temporal region of the head. The medical examiner opined

that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature. The High Court found that the medical

evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case and directly

implicated the accused.

21. In addition to addressing the merits of the case, the High

Court made scathing observations regarding the procedural

lapses and reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. It held that

the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse and suffered from a

lack of proper judicial application of mind. The High Court

observed that the Trial Court had selectively focused on

weaknesses in the prosecution’s case while completely ignoring

the strengths. It noted that the Trial Court had applied an

excessively stringent standard of proof. Such an approach, the

High Court observed, was contrary to the settled principles of

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 11 of 23 criminal jurisprudence and led to an unjust acquittal of the

accused.

22. Consequently, the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s

judgment and held that the prosecution had successfully

established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court convicted Accused No. 1 to 4 of the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC

and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to

pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for one year; but upheld the acquittal of Accused

No. 7 giving her the benefit of doubt.

23. Appellants are before us against this order of conviction

and the reversal of their acquittal.

24. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted

before us that the versions put forth by the eyewitnesses are not

trustworthy as they are relatives of the deceased and are thus

interested witnesses. The version put forth by PW3, who is the

widow, cannot be accepted in toto and is not consistent with the

versions of PW4 and PW7. The medical evidence on record does

not corroborate the version of the eyewitness. The prosecution

has failed to establish a motive for the abovementioned incident.

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 12 of 23 The Counsel further states that the recoveries effected from the

accused persons cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has

failed to attribute specific roles to the accused persons for the

injuries which were sustained by the victim.

25. Opposing the same, the learned counsel for the State of

Maharashtra submitted that the High Court has passed a well-

reasoned order of conviction while reversing the acquittal, and

thus this appeal should be dismissed.

26. After carefully examining the findings of both the Trial

Court and the High Court, it is apparent to us that the High

Court has undertaken a meticulous and thorough analysis of

the evidence on record, identified significant errors in the Trial

Court’s reasoning.

27. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the

appellants is that the eyewitnesses to the incident were all

closely related to the deceased and for prudence the prosecution

ought to have examined some other independent eyewitness as

well who were present at the time of the unfortunate incident.

This was also the view taken by the Trial Court, but the High

Court has correctly rejected such an approach and held that

merely because there were some more independent witnesses

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 13 of 23 also, who had reached the place of incident, the evidence of the

relatives cannot be disbelieved. The law nowhere states that the

evidence of the interested witness should be discarded

altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be

scrutinized with care and caution. It has been held by this Court

in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is a relative,

their testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone.

28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly

those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized.

However, being a relative does not automatically render a

witness "interested" or biased. 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. Courts must assess

the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements

rather than labelling them as untrustworthy.

29. The distinction between "interested" and "related"

witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 14 of 23 Punjab,3 where this Court emphasized that a close relative is

usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person.

Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the

court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their

testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not

discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed

based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other

evidence in the case. This position has been reiterated by this

Court in:

i. Md. Rojali Ali and Ors v. The State of Assam Ministry of Home Affairs through secretary;4 ii. Ganapathi v. State of T.N.;5 iii. Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry.6

30. Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined in the

present case were closely related to the deceased, namely his

wife, daughter and son, their testimonies are consistent with

respect to the accused persons being the assailants who

inflicted wounds on the deceased. As is revealed from the

sequence of events that transpired, one of the family members

3 1954 SCR 145.

4 (2019) 19 SCC567.

5 (2018) 5 SCC 549.

6 (2010) 1 SCC 199.

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 15 of 23 was subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for the

other family members to rush on the spot to intervene. The

presence of the family members on the spot and thus being

eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances,

merely because the eyewitnesses are family members, their

testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground.

31. Further, the High Court rightly rejected the Trial Court’s

conclusion that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable. The

Trial Court based its findings on perceived inconsistencies

between the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the medical

evidence. Specifically, the Trial Court found fault with the

eyewitness account of multiple stick blows to the victim’s head,

contending that the post-mortem report did not show multiple

head injuries. However, the High Court, after analysing the

evidence holistically, pointed out that minor inconsistencies in

eyewitness accounts do not render their testimony unreliable,

especially when they pertain to incidents involving sudden and

brutal violence.

32. It has been consistently laid down by this court that once

there is a version of eyewitness and the same inspires

confidence of the court it will be sufficient to prove the guilt of

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 16 of 23 the accused. A profitable reference can be made to the decision

of this Court in the case of Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol vs

Dinesh Dayabhai Vala and Ors.,7 wherein it was laid down

that:

“17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-10 is unimpeachable. It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.” (Emphasis supplied)

33. Hence, a conviction can be based upon the version put

forth by the eyewitness and the medical evidence must be

considered only for the purpose of corroboration of the ocular

evidence.

34. The High Court emphasized that eyewitnesses are often

subjected to intense trauma during violent incidents, which can

lead to minor lapses in their recollection of specific details. In

this case, the testimony of the eyewitnesses was consistent on

the critical facts: the presence of the accused at the scene, their

involvement in the attack, and the victim being beaten with

sticks. The High Court underscored that the core elements of

7 (2022) 18 SCC 683.

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 17 of 23 their testimony remained unshaken under cross-examination

and were supported by other evidence.

35. The Trial Court gave undue weight to minor discrepancies

in the eyewitness accounts, such as variations in their

descriptions of the sequence of events or the exact number of

blows inflicted. It is a well-established principle of law that

minor contradictions or inconsistencies in testimony do not

necessarily render it unreliable, as long as the core facts remain

intact. The role of the court is to discern the truth by

considering the evidence in its totality and not by isolating

individual inconsistencies to discredit an entire narrative. The

Trial Court erred by focusing excessively on trivial

discrepancies, thereby losing sight of the broader picture and

the compelling evidence against the accused.

36. The High Court appropriately invoked the principle that

when direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is credible

and reliable, it must be given due weight unless there are

compelling reasons to disbelieve it. In this case, the

eyewitnesses were independent and had no motive to falsely

implicate the accused. Their testimony was consistent with the

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 18 of 23 overall circumstances of the case and was corroborated by the

medical evidence.

37. In the present case, there were some variations in the

statement of eyewitnesses. PW3 had failed to mention about the

injuries caused to her while she was trying to protect her

husband from the attack, instead it was PW4 who had

mentioned about the assault made on PW3. There was also a

variance regarding the actual time during which the hand of the

deceased was twisted, which resulted in a fracture.

38. According to us, these discrepancies are not of such a

nature as to render their testimony unbelievable or unreliable.

Hence, the High Court has rightly observed that the dents which

are caused in the testimonies of these witnesses by the defence

do not cause impediment in inspiring the confidence of the

court. In order to render any witnesses’ testimony as unreliable,

the inconsistencies shall be material ones and of such a nature

that they create substantive doubts in the mind of the court

towards the story or the chain of events as sought to be

established by the prosecution.

39. Further, the counsels for the appellants have questioned

their role in the present crime and have contended that the

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 19 of 23 postmortem report does not assist the case of the prosecution,

it becomes necessary to go through the postmortem report. The

postmortem report of the deceased suggests that the cause of

death was due to “subdural hematoma with intracerebral

laceration due to fracture of left tempo parietal region.” There

were contused lacerated wounds over the left temporal region

and two abrasions. As rightly pointed out by the High Court the

injuries which were caused on the deceased person were

inflicted by various assailants. The nature of injuries suffered

by the deceased corroborates with the substantive statement of

the eyewitnesses namely PW3, PW4 and PW7.

40. The High Court correctly interpreted the medical evidence,

including the post-mortem report, in conjunction with the

eyewitness accounts. The Trial Court’s reliance on the absence

of multiple head injuries in the post-mortem report to discard

the eyewitness testimony was misplaced. The High Court noted

that the post-mortem findings did document significant injuries

consistent with an assault using sticks, including head injuries

and other bodily trauma.

41. The medical evidence confirmed the presence of a fatal

injury to the head caused by a blunt object, which was sufficient

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 20 of 23 to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The absence of

additional head injuries does not negate the possibility of

multiple blows being inflicted; rather, it reflects the limitations

of forensic science in capturing the full extent of injuries in

certain cases. Thus, the medical evidence did not contradict

but, in fact, supported the substance of the eyewitness

accounts, as has been observed by the High Court as well.

42. The High Court also correctly highlighted that the Trial

Court’s approach was contrary to the well-settled principle that

the benefit of the doubt must be based on rational and cogent

grounds. Mere conjectures or hypothetical inconsistencies

cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence, viewed

as a whole, points to the guilt of the accused.

43. Thus, we find enough compelling reasons to uphold the

High Court’s judgment and its finding that the Trial Court’s

judgment was perverse. A judgment is deemed perverse when it

ignores material evidence, misinterprets facts, or arrives at

conclusions that do not appear to be reasonable on the basis of

the evidence presented. The High Court identified several such

errors in the Trial Court’s judgment, including disregarding

credible eyewitness testimony without adequate justification;

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 21 of 23 misinterpreting the medical evidence and using it to erroneously

contradict eyewitness accounts; placing undue reliance on

minor inconsistencies while ignoring the overwhelming evidence

of guilt; failing to consider the sequence of events and the

conduct of the accused in its entirety.

44. The High Court’s approach is consistent with established

judicial precedents regarding the evaluation of evidence in

criminal cases. This Court has repeatedly held that minor

inconsistencies in witness testimony should not overshadow the

truth of their statements. Similarly, it has been emphasized that

medical evidence should be viewed as an aid to corroborate

eyewitness accounts rather than as the sole determinant of

facts. The High Court adhered to these principles while

assessing the evidence in this case, ensuring that its findings

were grounded in sound legal reasoning.

45. The brutal nature of the attack and the coordinated

actions of the accused demonstrated clear intent to cause

grievous harm, leading to the victim’s death. The Trial Court’s

acquittal of the accused not only undermined the credibility of

the justice system but also sent a troubling message about the

consequences of such heinous acts.

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 22 of 23

46. Therefore, the High Court’s judgment represents a well-

reasoned and legally sound decision that rectifies the errors of

the Trial Court and ensures that justice is served. The evidence

on record, when assessed in its entirety, establishes the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court’s

observations regarding the reliability of the eyewitness

testimony, the corroborative nature of the medical evidence, and

the perverse findings of the Trial Court are compelling and do

not warrant any interference.

47. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of

the High Court is upheld.

…………………………………….

[VIKRAM NATH]

…………………………………….

[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 22, 2025

Crl. Appeal No.1675 of 2015 Page 23 of 23