SUPREME COURT REJECTS ALIBI, UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN LAND DISPUTE MURDER CASE

The Judgment in the Case of Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs. State of Maharashtra., arising out of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1145 of 2011 and No. 1160 of 2025 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on March 05, 2025. This case primarily deals with the Appeal against the conviction of Tanaji Shamrao Kale (Accused No. 9), and others for murder and rioting under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the IPC, arising from a land dispute that led to the killing of Murlidhar. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the alibi defense and finding the eyewitness testimonies reliable.

Brief Facts:

The case arose from a long-standing land dispute between the family of the Complainant, Dadarao (PW-1), and the accused. On July 18, 2001, a violent incident occurred in which Murlidhar, the uncle of the Complainant, was brutally attacked and killed with swords by a group of accused, including Tanaji Shamrao Kale (Accused No. 9), who was a police constable at the time. The assault was allegedly instigated by Shamrao (Accused No. 8) and was witnessed by PW-1, PW-2 (Bajrang), and PW-5 (Tarabai). The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon) and 302 read with Section 149 (murder with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction.

Main Issues:

1.Whether the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5 were reliable and sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused.

2. Whether Accused No. 9 (Tanaji Shamrao Kale) successfully proved his alibi of being on duty as a police constable at the time of the incident.
3. Whether the Prosecution’s failure to examine other alleged eyewitnesses weakened the case against the accused.
4. Whether the omissions and contradictions in the statements of the Prosecution witnesses were significant enough to overturn the conviction.

Contentions by the Parties:

Appellants’ Contentions

The Appellants, who are the accused in this case, raised several contentions challenging their conviction. Firstly, they questioned the credibility of PW-1’s testimony, arguing that as an 11th standard student, he was supposed to be attending classes during the time of the incident, which was reported to have occurred between 10:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. The absence of any mention in his police statement about attending one lecture and returning home cast doubts on his presence at the scene.

Additionally, the Appellants pointed out significant omissions in the Prosecution’s evidence, noting that key witnesses who allegedly saw the incident were not examined. They argued that PW-2’s claim of seeing accused no.9 (Tanaji) assault the deceased was an omission and highlighted that PW-5 did not attribute any role to accused no.9, raising questions about his involvement.

The defense also presented an alibi for accused no.9, citing the testimony of PW-10, a police officer, who confirmed that Tanaji was assigned an important duty on the date of the incident and was not present at the police station. This alibi was put forward to substantiate his absence from the crime scene.

Furthermore, the Appellants criticized the trial court’s selective disbelief of Prosecution testimonies, which led to the acquittal of accused no.4 and no.8, arguing that similar reasoning should apply to the other accused as well. Based on these grounds, the Appellants’ counsel argued for their acquittal, asserting that the witness testimonies were unreliable and the evidence was insufficient.

Respondent’s (State of Maharashtra) Contentions

On the other hand, the State of Maharashtra, representing the Respondent, defended the conviction by emphasizing consistency in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5, which they argued clearly established the involvement of the accused.

They pointed out that no material contradictions emerged during cross-examination. Regarding the absence of accused no.9 in PW-5’s testimony, the Prosecution explained that PW-5 left the scene before his arrival, which justified her not mentioning him.

The Prosecution also countered the alibi defense by stating that while PW-10 confirmed that accused no.9 was on duty, no evidence was provided to prove his exact location during the incident, thus rendering the alibi unestablished.

Additionally, the State argued that the non-examination of other alleged eyewitnesses did not weaken the Prosecution’s case, particularly because PW-2 was an independent witness with no enmity towards the accused, making his testimony reliable. Emphasizing the credibility of the Prosecution witnesses and the absence of substantive evidence to contradict them, the State urged the court to uphold the conviction and sentence as determined by the High Court.

Supreme Court:

In the appeal before the Supreme Court, accused no. 9 (Tanaji) argued that he was on duty at the time of the incident, presenting an alibi based on the testimony of PW-10, a police inspector. However, the Supreme Court found this defense unsubstantiated, noting that Tanaji failed to provide concrete evidence of his whereabouts. The Court also dismissed arguments regarding alleged contradictions in eyewitness testimonies as minor and immaterial. It held that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5 was reliable and sufficient for conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and directed accused no. 9 to surrender within one month to serve the remaining sentence. Accused nos. 1, 2, and 5, who had already served their sentences, were not required to return to custody.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeals and directed Tanaji Shamrao Kale (Accused No. 9) to surrender within one month to serve the remaining sentence. The other accused, who had already served their sentences, were not required to return to custody. The judgment reaffirmed the life imprisonment sentences for the convicted individuals.

Baddam Parichaya Reddy

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please find below the YouTube Link for” IMPORTANCE OF LIMITATION IN LAW” (Episode 59: The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82iCFvFsS6o