Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband in Murder Case — Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Confirmed Based on Eye-Witness Testimony and Medical Evidence. The court found that the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the murder of his wife by inflicting multiple blows with an iron tocha.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sunil Ramchandra Khobragade, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, for the murder of his wife Nirasha under Section 302 IPC and for causing hurt to Rahul under Section 323 IPC. The incident occurred on 02.05.2016 at around 7:00 AM at Mouza Shivapur, Bandar. The deceased had been living separately from the appellant for three months due to disputes. On the day of the incident, the appellant came to the house of the deceased's sister, Vandana, where the deceased was washing utensils. He insisted she accompany him, and upon her refusal, he attacked her with a sharp pointed iron tocha, inflicting multiple blows on her chest, forearm, and abdomen. Rahul, Vandana's son, tried to rescue her but was also assaulted. The deceased ran towards the house of Bandu Dhok, but the appellant chased and continued assaulting her. Two witnesses, Shalikram Gharat and Bandu Dhok, caught the appellant. The deceased was taken to Chimur Government Hospital and then to Nagpur General Hospital, but died on the way. The prosecution examined eye-witnesses, including Rahul, and medical evidence showing 12 injuries. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the witnesses were interested. The High Court, after analyzing the evidence, found the testimony of Rahul credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on eye-witness testimony - The appellant was convicted for murdering his wife by inflicting multiple blows with an iron tocha. The court upheld the conviction relying on the testimony of an eye-witness (Rahul) and medical evidence showing 12 injuries. Held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-22).

B) Criminal Law - Hurt - Section 323 IPC - Conviction for causing hurt to rescuer - The appellant also assaulted Rahul, who tried to intervene. The court upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC based on the testimony of Rahul and medical evidence (Paras 1-22).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, dated 26.09.2017 is confirmed.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 323 IPC
  • Life Imprisonment
  • Eye-witness Testimony
  • Medical Evidence
  • Motive
  • Circumstantial Evidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 93

Criminal Appeal No.573 of 2018

2022-01-12

V.M. Deshpande, G.A. Sanap

Shri Sumit G. Joshi (appointed) for the appellant, Smt. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for the respondent/State

Sunil Ramchandra Khobragade

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing hurt.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court for murdering his wife and causing hurt to another person.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (life imprisonment) and Section 323 IPC (three months RI) on 26.09.2017.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence. Whether the conviction under Section 323 IPC is sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the evidence of eye-witnesses is unreliable and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Respondent/State argued that the testimony of eye-witness Rahul is credible and corroborated by medical evidence, and the conviction is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The testimony of an eye-witness, if credible and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

In this appeal challenge is to the judgment and order dated 26.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora District Chandrapur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and also convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Warora on 26.09.2017. He filed Criminal Appeal No.573 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and dismissed on 12.01.2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 323
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband in Murder Case — Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Confirmed Based on Eye-Witness Testimony and Medical Evidence. The court found that the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reason...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Civil Judge's Order Refusing Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute. Petitioner Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for Declaration and Injunction Suit.