Case: State of Maharashtra Vs. Subhaiya Kanak Maniah and Others

seated himself in the front left side window of the car, deposed that while the car was moving slowly, he saw one worker of the Company watching the car. The told P.W. 34 that somebody was watching. When the car moved further, the said person was giving signal. Thereafter somebody threw a tin containing petrol at the car. The tin dashed at the left door and some fell inside the car. Thereafter two other persons threw petrol in the rear side and A-7 was one of them. He also identified A-5 as one of the persons giving instructions to the man holding the petrol tin. Then a lighted substance was thrown into the car by Balan, whom he knew and the car got burnt. The version given by P.W. 38 is more or less the same. P.W. 34 Suvarna, an Officer of the Company in general gave the same version. He, however, in the cross-examination stated that he came out with an explanation that the had not given the descriptions of any person in the statement recorded on 3-11-73 as he was in a terrific pain. The evidence of these three eyewitnesses was not found to be acceptable by the High Court5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that these witnesses who received burns are the most natural witnesses and the respondents who were identified by them as having participated in the occurrence ought to have been convicted. We, have gone through the entire bulky record. As noted by the High Court, the case mainly rests on the evidence of these three eyewitnesses. The identification of the alleged culprits by these witnesses assumes lot of importance in the case. Admittedly these injured witnesses did give some statements to the police but further recording was stopped. The explanation given is that they were in serious condition and therefore further recording could not have proceeded with. It is only again at a subsequent stage that their statements were recorded in which they gave some particulars of the assailants. Throughout the contention of the defence had been that these witnesses did not give any descriptive particulars of the accused and therefore they had not seen the person concerned. It is only at a later stage after being tutored that they gave some particulars and proceeded to identify some of the assailants in the identification parade. The plea taken by the defence that some of them only had minor burns and that at least the evidence of Dr. Nuriyani, P.W. 41 shows that they were in a position to make the statements and that the Medical Officer of the Sion Hospital had no objection to their statements being taken at that time and in fact some part of the statements was recorded. P.W. 74, the Sub-Inspector who recorded the first statement of Barve, further stated that the Doctor asked him not to talk to Barve as he was under severe shock. P.W. 74 came out with another story in the deposition that the same night he visited Bhatia Hospital where he could record the statements of P.Ws. 28, 34, 38 and 39 who received burns. According to him, he had not completed their statements earlier. It therefore emerges that the statements of these witnesses recorded on 3-11-73 were not complete and by them descriptive particulars were not given. As a matter of fact, the statements of each of the witnesses recorded by the police at that stage ran into two or three full-scape sheets but in spite of such lengthy statements, the names and the descriptions of the culprits did not find place. Only P.W. 38, the Driver mentioned Balan as the main culprit. Except his name, no other names were mentioned. The High Court examined this position and observed that except the name of Balan, the names or descriptive particulars of no other accused were mentioned and that leads to an inference that these witnesses have not actually seen the culprits and their subsequent identification either in the parade or in the Court does not inspire confidence. Admittedly A-7 had deformity in his hand and Kadam, P.W. 39 knew Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 by face and A-5 by both name and face for a long time before the incident but still no descriptive particulars were mentioned. In spite of his claim that he had known Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, surprisingly he did not identify A-7 in the parade. The circumstance that the statements of these witnesses were recorded on 5-11-73 and 8-11-73 supports the plea of the defence that these witnessed have not seen actually who the culprits were and for that reason they could not give descriptive particulars earlier. In this context it is also important to note that the prosecution filed to examine the two female employees Miss Leela Ramaswamy and Miss Leela Chandane, who has escaped with negligible or no burns and who would have been in a better position to give the particulars. The High Court has also given good reasons for coming to the conclusion that a deliberate attempt to implicate A-6 was made by Suvarna, P.W. 34. It is rather strange that these witnesses gave some of the descriptive particulars only in their later statements. Further the circumstances show that the incident must have occurred with in seconds rather in a flash of time and it is highly doubtful whether these witnesses would have been in a position to identify any of the culprits. We cannot say that the reasons given by the High Court for not relying on the evidence of these witnesses are unsound and if the evidence of these main witnesses becomes doubtful and not acceptable, then the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not advance the prosecution case. We do see that the culprits have acted high-handedly without any concern for law and order. But there is paucity of evidence and the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]We, have gone through the entire bulky record. As noted by the High Court, the case mainly rests on the evidence of these three eyewitnesses. The identification of the alleged culprits by these witnesses assumes lot of importance in the case. Admittedly these injured witnesses did give some statements to the police but further recording was stopped. The explanation given is that they were in serious condition and therefore further recording could not have proceeded with. It is only again at a subsequent stage that their statements were recorded in which they gave some particulars of the assailants. Throughout the contention of the defence had been that these witnesses did not give any descriptive particulars of the accused and therefore they had not seen the person concerned. It is only at a later stage after being tutored that they gave some particulars and proceeded to identify some of the assailants in the identification parade. The plea taken by the defence that some of them only had minor burns and that at least the evidence of Dr. Nuriyani, P.W. 41 shows that they were in a position to make the statements and that the Medical Officer of the Sion Hospital had no objection to their statements being taken at that time and in fact some part of the statements was recorded. P.W. 74, thewho recorded the first statement of Barve, further stated that the Doctor asked him not to talk to Barve as he was under severe shock. P.W. 74 came out with another story in the deposition that the same night he visited Bhatia Hospital where he could record the statements of P.Ws. 28, 34, 38 and 39 who received burns. According to him, he had not completed their statements earlier. It therefore emerges that the statements of these witnesses recorded onwere not complete and by them descriptive particulars were not given. As a matter of fact, the statements of each of the witnesses recorded by the police at that stage ran into two or threesheets but in spite of such lengthy statements, the names and the descriptions of the culprits did not find place. Only P.W. 38, the Driver mentioned Balan as the main culprit. Except his name, no other names were mentioned. The High Court examined this position and observed that except the name of Balan, the names or descriptive particulars of no other accused were mentioned and that leads to an inference that these witnesses have not actually seen the culprits and their subsequent identification either in the parade or in the Court does not inspire confidence. Admittedlyhad deformity in his hand and Kadam, P.W. 39 knew Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 by face andby both name and face for a long time before the incident but still no descriptive particulars were mentioned. In spite of his claim that he had known Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, surprisingly he did not identifyin the parade. The circumstance that the statements of these witnesses were recorded on73 supports the plea of the defence that these witnessed have not seen actually who the culprits were and for that reason they could not give descriptive particulars earlier. In this context it is also important to note that the prosecution filed to examine the two female employees Miss Leela Ramaswamy and Miss Leela Chandane, who has escaped with negligible or no burns and who would have been in a better position to give the particulars. The High Court has also given good reasons for coming to the conclusion that a deliberate attempt to implicatewas made by Suvarna, P.W. 34. It is rather strange that these witnesses gave some of the descriptive particulars only in their later statements. Further the circumstances show that the incident must have occurred with in seconds rather in a flash of time and it is highly doubtful whether these witnesses would have been in a position to identify any of the culprits. We cannot say that the reasons given by the High Court for not relying on the evidence of these witnesses are unsound and if the evidence of these main witnesses becomes doubtful and not acceptable, then the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not advance the prosecution case. We do see that the culprits have actedwithout any concern for law and order. But there is paucity of evidence and the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt.