In a striking judgment conveyed on September 18, 2024, the Incomparable Court vindicated two people, Saheb and Sitaram Pandurang Gabare, already sentenced within the kill of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare, citing critical errors in witness declaration. The case spun around a politically spurred assault in 2006, where Madhavrao and his family were ambushed in their town in Maharashtra.
Case Background
Twenty-two people were charged in association with the kill of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare, and nine were indicted by the Extra Sessions Judge in 2008 beneath Segments 148 (revolting), 302 (kill), and 324 (causing harmed) of the Indian Corrective Code (IPC). The denounced recorded requests, and in 2010, the Bombay Tall Court's Aurangabad Seat vindicated six whereas maintaining the conviction of Saheb (Blamed No. 3) and Sitaram (Charged No. 5), among others.
Both appellants recorded an request some time recently the Preeminent Court, addressing the unwavering quality of the prosecution's prove, specifically the declaration of the most onlooker, Janakibai Gabare, the dowager of the expired.
Prosecution's Case:
The prosecution claimed that the defendants attacked Madhavrao and his family on the evening of April 8, 2006, using sticks and axes. Political rivalry was identified as the motivation, since Madhavrao had previously served as the village sarpanch, which had strained relations between him and a few of the accused. According to Janakibai (PW-1), her son Ganesh (PW-8), and other family members, they saw the attack. Janakibai named Saheb, Sitaram, and other people as the attackers.
High Court’s Evaluation:
Despite recognizing Janakibai's testimony, the Bombay High Court did not find any solid evidence to support the other accused's involvement. Because there were no particular charges that connected them to the harm done to the dead, the court cleared them. However, it upheld the conviction of Saheb and Sitaram based on Janakibai’s account.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The Incomparable Court fastidiously assessed the declaration of Janakibai (PW-1) and found a few irregularities. Whereas recognizing the brutality of the wrongdoing, the court pushed that the conviction must be based on strong prove and not on insignificant suspicions.
Inconsistencies in Declaration:
The court watched that Janakibai had changed her story between her starting complaint and her court declaration. Her deposition introduced new details, such as the involvement of additional accused and specific allegations regarding the weapons used, which had not been mentioned earlier. The court found this embellishment problematic, stating, "the contradictions in her story would raise reasonable doubt."
Unreliable Identification: The attack took place during a power outage, with only moonlight providing visibility. The court noted that Janakibai’s claim of recognizing the attackers in such conditions was dubious.
Flawed Witnesses:
The Tall Court had as of now disposed of the declarations of other key witnesses, such as Govind Gabare (PW-5) and Kamalbai Gabare (PW-4), due to their vague nearness at the scene. Also, Ganesh Gabare (PW-8), who was gathered to be an observer, given no points of interest around the ambush. Hence, the whole case rested on Janakibai's declaration, which the court found questionable.
Acquittal and Conclusion:
The judgment underscored the principle that, "the guilt of those responsible for his [Madhavrao's] murder has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt."
The judgment concluded with the following words: "The appeals are accordingly allowed. The bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellants shall stand discharged.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court Saheb Sitaram Pandurang Gabare Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare Bombay High Court acquittal reasonable doubt inconsistent testimony political rivalry murder case
