LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

#3. Coming to the involvement of accused A-5 and A-6, they are named in the FIR as well as in the alleged oral declaration by the deceased. Even the recovery of weapons supports the case and the statements of prosecution witnesses are also consistent pointing at the guilt of the accused. The evidence of the Doctor A B C D E F G H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H and the injuries sustained by the deceased clearly establishes the guilt of accused A-5 and A-6 and merely not attributing specific overt act to an accused would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In every criminal trial, normally discrepancies are bound to occur due to long lapse of time between the date of incident and deposition of witnesses before the Court. When the contradictions are so serious and create doubt in the mind of the court about the truthfulness of the statement, then such evidence is not safe to rely upon. The contradictions in the evidence concerning this case are very trivial in nature and will not affect the case of the prosecution. Taking into account all the circumstances coupled with the evidences, the case of prosecution clearly establishes the fact of involvement and guilt of accused A-5 and A-6 beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 44, 45] [730-H; 731-A, B, C-E]

#4. The case against Accused A-2 and A-3 has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the same cannot be said with respect to others, whose roles have been proved with cogent evidence available on record. Therefore, the conviction and sentence against Accused A-2 and A-3 set aside and the conviction and sentence under Section 302, IPC with respect to Accused A-1 and conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with 34, IPC with respect to accused A-5 and A- 6 is maintained. [Para 47] [731-G-H; 732-A]