Case Note & Summary
These criminal appeals arose from the judgment and order dated 28 August 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibaug in Sessions Case No.104 of 2010. The case concerned the contract killing of Santosh Thakur, an office bearer of the sludge oil association at Uran, arising out of rivalry in the sludge oil business generated from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port. Six accused persons were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The trial court convicted Accused Nos.4 and 5 (Sumedh @ Pappu Yerunkar and Rakesh @ Pintya Rane) and acquitted Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6. The convicted accused appealed against conviction; the State of Maharashtra and the brother of the deceased appealed against acquittal. According to the prosecution, the accused hatched a conspiracy at Center Mall, Vashi, to eliminate Santosh Thakur because he refused to give a No Objection Certificate for their entry into the sludge oil business. Accused No.1 Satish Patil allegedly gave Rs.50,000 to Accused No.4 through Accused No.3, and Accused Nos.2 and 3 provided a motorcycle and a car. On 26 April 2010 at about 6.15 p.m., while Santosh Thakur was at a garage in Uran for car repair, three unknown persons arrived on a black Unicorn motorcycle. Two pillion riders got off and fired pistols at Santosh Thakur; one bullet hit him and he started running, calling for help. The curly-haired assailant fired 3 to 4 more rounds, one of which injured Rashad Humaji, a garage worker. Santosh Thakur collapsed and was taken to Dake Hospital and then to Suraj Hospital, Sanpada, where he succumbed to injuries. Before death, he told his brother Ajay Thakur and others that Satish Patil, Pappu and Krishna Patil 'made his game' as he did not give No Objection for their sludge oil business. The police registered Crime No.45 of 2010, conducted spot panchanama, seized cartridges and blood-stained soil, and arrested the accused over time. Identification parade was conducted on 2 July 2010 where witnesses identified Accused Nos.4 and 5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial court framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(25) of Arms Act. The Sessions Judge, after considering evidence, held that the prosecution proved Accused Nos.4 and 5 committed the murder of Santosh Thakur and hatched conspiracy with remaining accused, but held that this was not proved against Accused Nos.1,2,3 and 6. Accordingly, Accused Nos.4 and 5 were convicted under Sections 302/120-B, 307/34 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines, with concurrent sentences. Accused Nos.1,2,3 and 6 were acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC. The appeals before the High Court challenged the correctness of conviction and acquittal. The provided extract of the judgment does not include the final operative order of the High Court. The court heard the appeals together and reserved judgment on the sufficiency of evidence for murder, conspiracy, attempt to murder, and Arms Act offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Criminal Conspiracy - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 120-B, 34 - Trial court convicted Accused Nos.4 and 5 for murder of Santosh Thakur, holding that prosecution proved they shot him in furtherance of prior conspiracy over sludge oil business - Evidence included eyewitness account, dying declaration by deceased naming key accused, and identification parade - Held that the conviction rested on proof of participation and conspiracy (Paras 6-9). B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 34 - Accused Nos.4 and 5 also fired at Rashad Humaji during the attack, causing bullet injury to his left leg - Trial court convicted them for attempt to murder and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine - Held that the act of shooting a bystander during murderous assault constituted attempt to murder (Paras 6, 10). C) Arms Law - Unauthorised Possession and Use of Firearms - Indian Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3, 25 - Accused Nos.4 and 5 possessed and used pistols without authority to commit the murder - Trial court convicted them under Arms Act and sentenced six months rigorous imprisonment and fine - Held that the prosecution proved unlawful possession and use of firearms (Paras 2, 6, 10). D) Criminal Law - Acquittal and Benefit of Doubt - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 120-B; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 235(1) - Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 were acquitted by trial court of charges of murder and conspiracy - The trial court found that prosecution failed to prove their involvement beyond reasonable doubt - Held that they were entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal under Section 235(1) CrPC (Paras 8, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court correctly convicted Accused Nos.4 and 5 for murder, attempt to murder and Arms Act offences; whether the acquittal of Accused Nos.1,2,3 and 6 was justified; whether the evidence of conspiracy, identification, and dying declaration was sufficient.
Law Points
- murder under Section 302 IPC
- criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC
- common intention under Section 34 IPC
- attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC
- unauthorised possession of firearms under Sections 3 and 25 Arms Act
- benefit of doubt in acquittal
- identification parade evidence
- dying declaration admissibility
