Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard five criminal appeals arising out of Sessions Case No.164 of 2011 decided by the Sessions Judge, Solapur on 8 May 2014. The appellants had been convicted under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for conspiracy and life imprisonment with fine for murder. The appeals challenged these convictions. Background: The deceased Bajrang Dhavane worked as Secretary of the Solapur District Secondary School Teachers and Employees Credit Society at Bale, Solapur. The prosecution alleged that accused Nos.3 to 6, who were employees of the same society, harbored ill-will and rivalry against the deceased because they wanted to become secretary. They allegedly conspired to eliminate him and hired accused Nos.1 and 2 to carry out the attack. Facts: On 16 February 2011 at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle with his son Swapnil (P.W.2) from Bale to Diksal village. Near village Karamba, two persons on a motorcycle stopped them. The pillion rider, wearing a sky blue shirt and white pant, asked the deceased the name of his village and then suddenly assaulted him with a knife on the left and right side of chest, right shoulder and forearm. The assailants fled on a Pulsar motorcycle. The son took the injured father by State Transport bus and private jeep to hospital. The deceased was first admitted in Raut Hospital and then shifted to Ganga Hospital. He succumbed to injuries on 17 February 2011 at about 7 a.m. The son lodged FIR on 17 February 2011 at 14.10 hours at Mohol Police Station, leading to Crime No.67 of 2011. Accused No.3 was arrested on 17 May 2011, accused Nos.4,5,6 were arrested on 20 February 2011, and accused No.2 was arrested on 11 December 2011. Charge-sheet was filed on 19 May 2011. Legal Issues: The primary issues were whether the prosecution proved the identity of the assailants, the reliability of the dying declaration, the existence of conspiracy, and common intention among the accused. Arguments: The prosecution relied on direct evidence of P.W.2, the son, who identified accused No.1 as the assailant and accused No.2 as the motorcycle driver in test identification parades held on 18 May 2011 and 16 February 2012. The prosecution also relied on the dying declaration made to P.W.4 Shivraj Barkul, who testified that the deceased disclosed that accused Nos.4 to 6 sent the assailants due to departmental rivalry and named them. P.W.6 Mukund Dhavane, cousin of the deceased, spoke about quarrels between the deceased and accused Nos.4 to 6 over the secretary post. The defence, through cross-examination, highlighted delay in lodging FIR, lack of bloodstains on the son's clothes, failures to identify in earlier test identification parades, delayed disclosure of dying declaration by P.W.4, and P.W.4's subsequent nomination as Secretary on the same day the accused were arrested. Court's Analysis: The available text shows the court examined the direct evidence of P.W.2, the dying declaration made to P.W.4, and the evidence of conspiracy. The court noted material omissions and discrepancies, such as P.W.4 not disclosing the alleged dying declaration to police until 23 February 2011 and not informing police when he acted as panch for inquest on 17 February 2011. The court observed that P.W.4 had signed the carbon copy of the complaint Exh.103 subsequently and that he became Secretary after the arrest of accused Nos.4 to 6. These factors were relevant to credibility. The court also considered the test identification parades and the identification of accused Nos.1 and 2. Decision: The extracted judgment text does not contain the final operative order. The court reserved judgment on 21 September 2021 and pronounced it on 5 October 2021. The appeals were heard together; no final conclusion is reproduced in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Proof of Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B - The prosecution alleged that accused Nos.3 to 6 conspired to eliminate the deceased, a Credit Society Secretary, due to workplace rivalry over the secretary post; evidence included dying declaration to P.W.4 and complaint (Exh.103) showing strained relations. The court examined whether evidence established meeting of minds among accused; no final determination in available text (Paras 5-11). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The prosecution case rested on direct evidence of P.W.2, who identified accused Nos.1 and 2 as assailants; accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly hired by accused Nos.3 to 6 to assault the deceased, causing fatal injuries. The court considered whether common intention existed among all accused for murder; final reasoning not included in extracted text (Paras 2-4, 7). C) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Corroboration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - P.W.4 testified that the injured deceased disclosed to him that assailants were sent by accused Nos.4 to 6 due to departmental rivalry, naming Gahininath Dhavane, Prakash Sawant and Pandharinath Pawar. The court noted delay in disclosing this statement and P.W.4's subsequent nomination as Secretary, relevant to credibility (Paras 7-11). D) Evidence - Test Identification Parade - Reliability of Identification - Not mentioned - P.W.2 identified Accused No.1 in TIP on 18/05/2011 and Accused No.2 in second TIP on 16/02/2012; cross-examination highlighted failures to identify on other dates. The court considered the circumstances of identification but final assessment not in available text (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 and 2 were the assailants who murdered the deceased and whether accused Nos.3 to 6 conspired with common intention to commit the murder under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Final Decision
The extracted text does not contain the final operative order. The High Court heard the appeals, reserved judgment on 21 September 2021, and pronounced it on 5 October 2021.
Law Points
- Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC requires meeting of minds
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Dying declaration as substantive evidence under Section 32 Indian Evidence Act
- Test identification parade reliability
- Direct evidence of eye-witness
- Motive of workplace rivalry
