Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 8.5.2001 at about 20.00 hours in Rampuri, District Bhandara, where the appellants Motiram and Ratiram, along with one Ramesh (who was acquitted), allegedly assaulted Kalpana (PW1), her husband Dadaram (PW2), and her brother-in-law Dhanraj (deceased) with weapons including a sword and sticks. The motive was a prior quarrel over a water channel. Kalpana lodged an FIR (Exh.34) at 23.30 hours, initially under Section 324 IPC. Dhanraj succumbed to his injuries on 19.5.2001 while undergoing treatment, leading to conversion of the case to Section 302 IPC. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder and appellant no.2 Ratiram also under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to Dadaram with a dangerous weapon. The appellants appealed, challenging the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence of injured eyewitnesses Kalpana and Dadaram, the dying declaration of Dhanraj (Exh.38), medical evidence, and the motive. The court found the eyewitnesses credible and their testimony consistent with medical evidence. The dying declaration was recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate and corroborated the prosecution case. The court held that the common intention to cause death was established as both appellants participated in the assault with weapons. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Sections 302, 324, 34 IPC - Conviction based on evidence of injured eyewitnesses and dying declaration - Appellants assaulted deceased and injured witnesses with weapons - Medical evidence corroborated injuries - Held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court's judgment was correct (Paras 1-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Murder under Section 302 IPC
- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon under Section 324 IPC
- Appreciation of evidence of injured witnesses
- Dying declaration
- Motive
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 132
Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2004
Mr. S.M. Bhangade for Appellants, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Respondent
Motiram s/o Baxi Kodwate and Ratiram s/o Baxi Kodwate
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for murder of Dhanraj and causing hurt to Dadaram, and they challenged the conviction on merits.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara) in Sessions Trial No.80/2001 convicted both appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and appellant no.2 under Section 324 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and RI for 1 year respectively.
Issues
Whether the evidence of injured eyewitnesses is reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Whether the dying declaration of the deceased is admissible and corroborates the prosecution case.
Whether the common intention to commit murder is established.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested and their testimony was inconsistent; the dying declaration was not reliable; and the medical evidence did not support the case of murder.
Respondent argued that the injured eyewitnesses were natural witnesses, their testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and dying declaration; common intention was evident from the joint assault.
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable when the prosecution proves through credible eyewitness testimony, dying declaration, and medical evidence that the accused acted in furtherance of common intention to cause death. Injured witnesses are considered reliable unless there are strong reasons to disbelieve them.
Judgment Excerpts
By present appeal, appellants have thrown a challenge to judgment and order dated 7.5.2004 passed by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No.80/2001 convicting both of them for committing murder of one Dhanraj Sitaram Shelke in furtherance of their common intention...
Procedural History
FIR registered on 8.5.2001 under Section 324 IPC; deceased died on 19.5.2001; case converted to Section 302 IPC; charge sheet filed; trial court convicted on 7.5.2004; appeal filed on 2004; judgment reserved on 29.1.2010; pronounced on 23.2.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 324, 34
