Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three criminal appeals arising from a common trial. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2005, Bapusaheb Bhaguji Hande and Chandrakant Bapusaheb Hande, were convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 143, 149, 302 read with 149, and 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State of Maharashtra filed two appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos.245 and 246 of 2005) against the acquittal of other accused persons. The prosecution case was that on 5 May 2001 at about 5:30 p.m. in village Javale Kadlag, all accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to murder Trimbak Vithoba Kadlag and Shakuntala Subhash Kadlag. Accused No.2 Chandrakant allegedly poured kerosene on Trimbak and set him ablaze, causing 54% burn injuries, to which Trimbak succumbed on 17 May 2001 at Jyoti Hospital, Nashik. Accused No.1 Bapusaheb and accused No.6 Bhausaheb allegedly caused hurt to Shakuntala with a knife and murdered her. The trial court convicted Bapusaheb and Chandrakant under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and other sections, while acquitting others. The High Court heard all appeals together. The court examined the evidence of eye-witnesses and found it inconsistent and unreliable. The identification of the accused was doubtful, and the prosecution failed to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal of Bapusaheb and Chandrakant, setting aside their conviction and acquitting them. The State's appeals against acquittal of other accused were dismissed as the evidence did not warrant interference.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 302, 143, 149, 506 IPC - Benefit of Doubt - Appeal against conviction for murder of Trimbak Kadlag and Shakuntala Kadlag - Prosecution case based on eye-witnesses whose testimony was inconsistent and doubtful - Court found that the evidence did not inspire confidence and the identification of accused was not reliable - Held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused entitled to acquittal (Paras 2-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants/accused were guilty of murder and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2005 is allowed. The conviction of Bapusaheb Bhaguji Hande and Chandrakant Bapusaheb Hande is set aside and they are acquitted. Criminal Appeal Nos.245 and 246 of 2005 are dismissed.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Doubtful identification
- Unlawful assembly
- Common object
- Murder
- Hurt
- Criminal intimidation
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 99
Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2005, Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2005, Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2005
P.V. Hardas, Shrihari P. Davare
Mr S.T. Shelke for appellants in Cr.Appeal No.125/2005 and respondents in other appeals; Mr S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent State
Bapusaheb Bhaguji Hande and Chandrakant Bapusaheb Hande (in Cr.Appeal No.125/2005); State of Maharashtra (in Cr.Appeal Nos.245/2005 and 246/2005)
State of Maharashtra (in Cr.Appeal No.125/2005); Bapusaheb Bhaguji Hande, Chandrakant Bapusaheb Hande, Daulat Murlidhar Deshmukh, Navnath Murlidhar Deshmukh, Balu Murlidhar Deshmukh, Bhausaheb Bapusaheb Hande (in Cr.Appeal No.245/2005); Bapusaheb Bhaguji Hande and Chandrakant Bapusaheb Hande (in Cr.Appeal No.246/2005)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case
Remedy Sought
Appellants in Cr.Appeal No.125/2005 sought acquittal; State sought conviction of acquitted accused in other appeals
Filing Reason
Conviction under Sections 302, 143, 149, 506 IPC challenged on grounds of insufficient evidence
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted Bapusaheb and Chandrakant under Sections 302 read with 149, 143, 506 read with 149 IPC; acquitted other accused
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder
Whether the evidence of eye-witnesses was reliable and consistent
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was inconsistent and identification was doubtful
State argued that the trial court correctly convicted the appellants
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent and doubtful evidence entitles the accused to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
The case of the prosecution against the accused was that on 5.5.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. at village Javale Kadlag, Taluka Sangamner, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder of Trimbak Vithoba Kadlag and Shakuntala Subhash Kadlag
The prosecution further alleged that accused no.1 Bapusaheb and accused no.6 Bhausaheb s/o Bapusaheb, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly caused hurt to Shakuntala Subhash Kadlag by a knife and committed her murder by inflicting injuries by knife.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Bapusaheb Bhaguji Hande and Chandrakant Bapusaheb Hande under Sections 302 read with 149, 143, 506 read with 149 IPC and acquitted other accused. The convicted accused appealed (Cr.Appeal No.125/2005). The State appealed against acquittal of other accused (Cr.Appeal Nos.245 and 246/2005). All appeals were heard together and decided by common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 143, 149, 302, 506
