Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 7 July 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500 with default rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants, Shankar Sayaji Handore, Digambar Sayaji Handore, and Chandu alias Chandrakant Sayaji Handore, were original accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.88 of 2003. The prosecution alleged that the deceased Hiraman More, a poor fisherman residing at Village Vihitgaon, went fishing around midnight of 19 February 2003 and did not return. The next morning around 8.00 a.m., accused No.2 Digambar Handore called the deceased's wife Hirabai to his grape orchard, where she found her husband alive but injured, with his hands and legs tied to scrap wood and a rope around his neck. Accused No.1 Shankar Handore allegedly stated in the presence of others that he had assaulted the deceased presuming him to be a thief. Hirabai brought her husband home and then admitted him to Bytco Hospital at 10.00 a.m. on 20 February 2003. The deceased's son informed the police, but the deceased was unable to give a statement. The deceased died at around 2.40 p.m. the same day. Hirabai lodged a report with Nashik Road Police Station, which was registered as C.R. No.53 of 2003 under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. A separate complaint by trustees of Madari Baba Dargah regarding a stolen donation box was also filed. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session. A charge under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC was framed against all accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The court noted that P.W.3 Madhukar Shinde, P.W.6 Sanjay Sathe, P.W.9 Jagan, and P.W.11 Vinayak Rao turned hostile. Material witnesses included P.W.1 Hirabai More, P.W.5 Sanjay Vadnere, and P.W.12 Kashinath Bharte, along with P.W.4 Dr. Yuvraj Pawar, who conducted the autopsy. The autopsy revealed thirteen injuries on the deceased and the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. The deceased's death was homicidal. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, and the provided text concludes during the court's analysis of the medical evidence and cross-examination of the autopsy surgeon, without recording the final operative decision. No final determination is available in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Homicidal Death and Medical Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201, 34 - The deceased Hiraman More suffered thirteen ante-mortem injuries, and the autopsy surgeon opined that the probable cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries; the court noted that the deceased admittedly died a homicidal death - Held that the medical evidence established homicidal death (Paras 18-21). B) Criminal Law - Hostile Witnesses - Evidentiary Value - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201, 34 - Four prosecution witnesses, namely P.W.3 Madhukar Shinde, P.W.6 Sanjay Sathe, P.W.9 Jagan, and P.W.11 Vinayak Rao, resiled from their statements and turned hostile; the court observed that their evidence was hardly of any use to the prosecution - Held that the testimony of hostile witnesses did not support the prosecution case (Para 16). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201, 34 - The appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 for allegedly committing murder in furtherance of common intention; the court was required to assess whether the prosecution established the element of common intention based on circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused - Held that the evidence was being examined to determine if common intention was proved (Paras 12-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of common intention, committed the murder of Hiraman More, and whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- hostile witnesses
- homicidal death
- common intention
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- burden of proof
- medical evidence
- appeal against conviction
