Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 28.03.2008 at about 11:00 p.m., where three accused persons, including appellant Murli Maniram Dhurve (accused no.2) and Virendra Ramesh Fule (accused no.3), forcibly entered the house of Lalitabai. The accused no.1 Kishor had a knife, while accused no.2 and accused no.3 had swords. They kicked open the door, dragged Lalitabai out, and accused no.1 stabbed her in the abdomen with a knife. The informant Pradeep Thakur (PW3) and Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW5) witnessed the incident and tried to intervene. Lalitabai died from the injuries. The trial court convicted accused no.1 and accused no.2 under Sections 302 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively, but acquitted accused no.3 of all charges. The appellant Murli Dhurve challenged his conviction, while the State appealed against the acquittal of accused no.3. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the testimonies of PW3 and PW5 were credible and consistent, establishing the appellant's role in the crime. The court noted that the appellant was present with a sword and participated in dragging the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant was upheld. Regarding the State's appeal against acquittal of accused no.3, the court found that no specific overt act was attributed to him, and the trial court's view was plausible. Hence, the acquittal was not interfered with. Both appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Sections 302, 149, 452 IPC - Conviction based on credible testimony of informant and injured witness - The appellant along with co-accused entered the house of the deceased at night, assaulted her with weapons - The court held that the evidence of PW3 and PW5 was consistent and trustworthy, establishing the appellant's presence and participation in the crime - Conviction upheld (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Lack of Overt Act - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452 IPC - The State appealed against acquittal of accused no.3 - The court found that the evidence did not attribute any specific overt act to accused no.3 - Held that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse and did not warrant interference (Paras 3, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of appellant Murli Dhurve under Sections 302 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable; and whether the acquittal of accused no.3 Virendra Fule is justified.
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed. Conviction of appellant Murli Dhurve upheld. Acquittal of accused no.3 Virendra Fule confirmed.
Law Points
- Common intention
- Section 149 IPC
- Overt act
- Credibility of witnesses
- Acquittal appeal
- Life imprisonment
- House trespass
