Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals filed by Raju @ Mukesh Punamchand Dangre and Dipak @ Golu Ananda Tayde against their conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, in Sessions Trial No.86/2012. The appellants were convicted for the murder of Police Constable Sanjay Kharat and attempt to murder Police Constable Rajendra Bawane, along with other offences. The prosecution case was that on 25th August 2011, the two police constables were on patrol duty when they intercepted the appellants near Malkapur. The appellants, who were traveling on a motorcycle, opened fire on the constables, killing Constable Kharat and injuring Constable Bawane. The appellants then fled with the dead body and later abandoned it. The trial court convicted the appellants based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, recovery of weapons, and motive. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants. The court upheld the conviction under Sections 302, 307, 353, 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and confirmed the sentences, including life imprisonment for murder. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The prosecution relied on the last seen evidence of the deceased and injured police constable with the appellants, coupled with recovery of weapons and motive. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants. (Paras 1-30) B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Assault on Public Servant - Section 353 IPC - The injured constable PW-2 identified the appellants as the assailants who fired at him. The court held that the evidence of PW-2 was credible and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the offence under Section 307 IPC. (Paras 15-25) C) Criminal Law - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - The appellant Raju was found in possession of the dead body and attempted to dispose of it. The court held that the recovery of the body and the appellant's conduct established the offence under Section 201 IPC. (Paras 20-28) D) Arms Act - Section 25 - Possession of Firearm - The appellant Raju was found in possession of a country-made pistol without license. The court held that the recovery and seizure of the weapon proved the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. (Paras 22-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 353, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision
The appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 353, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, are confirmed.
Law Points
- Murder
- Attempt to Murder
- Assault on Public Servant
- Causing Disappearance of Evidence
- Arms Act
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Last Seen Together
- Recovery of Weapon
- Motive
- Common Intention
