Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a Criminal Confirmation Case along with three criminal appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2005. The trial court convicted Accused 1 (Maroti) and Accused 2 (Vinod) for offences under Sections 302, 324, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing Accused 1 to death for triple murder and Accused 2 to life imprisonment. Accused 3 was convicted under Section 324 IPC. Accused 1 and 2 were acquitted of Sections 147, 148 IPC, Section 4 read with Section 35 of the Arms Act, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Accused 4 and 5 were acquitted of all charges. The confirmation case arose from the reference of the death sentence. Accused 1 and 2 preferred appeals against their convictions, and the State filed an appeal against the acquittals of Accused 3, 4, and 5.
The prosecution case was that on the day of Pola festival on 14.9.2004 at village Mozar, a quarrel occurred due to suspicion of a love affair between Sunil (deceased) and Pushpa, sister of Accused 2. Accused 2 assaulted Sunil with a sword, and when others intervened, Accused 1 and Accused 2, armed with swords, entered the house of Sunil Jawalkar and inflicted grievous injuries on Sunil, Parashram, and Chandrashekhar, who later succumbed. Several others, including PW4, PW5, PW8, PW10, were injured. The first informant PW4 gave an oral report, leading to registration of an offence initially under Sections 452, 302, 307 read with 34 IPC. Investigation involved seizure of weapons, blood samples, recording of statements, and examination of witnesses. The trial court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC and Arms Act and Bombay Police Act, with additional charge under Section 452 IPC against Accused 1 and 2. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses, including injured eyewitnesses, panch witnesses, and investigating officers. The defence was one of total denial, claiming false implication. The High Court reserved judgment on 17.2.2010 and pronounced it on 30.3.2010.
Issue of Consideration
Confirmation of death sentence of Accused 1; appeals by Accused 1 and 2 against conviction and sentence; State appeal against acquittal of Accused 3, 4, and 5
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 162
Criminal Confirmation Case No.2 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.633 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2009
Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for State; Mr. R.R. Shrivastava for Accused 1 and 2; Mr. H.D. Dangre for Respondents in Appeal No.89/2009
State of Maharashtra (in Confirmation Case and Appeal No.89/2009); Maroti s/o Namdeo Shrirame and Vinod s/o Maroti Shrirame (in Appeals No.633/2008 and 102/2009)
Maroti s/o Namdeo Shrirame (in Confirmation Case); State of Maharashtra (in Appeals No.633/2008 and 102/2009); Gopikisan @ Om Parashram Gadmade, Parashram Bakaram Gadmade, Purushottam Parashram Gadmade (in Appeal No.89/2009)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal confirmation case and appeals arising from trial court judgment convicting two accused for murder and other offences and acquitting them and other accused of certain charges.
Remedy Sought
State seeking confirmation of death sentence of Accused 1; Accused 1 and Accused 2 appealing against conviction and sentences; State appealing against acquittal of Accused 3, 4, and 5.
Filing Reason
Mandatory confirmation of death sentence; convicts challenging trial court conviction and severity of sentence; State seeking reversal of acquittals.
Previous Decisions
Trial court judgment dated 16.6.2008 in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2005 by Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, convicting and sentencing Accused 1, 2, and 3 and acquitting them and others of certain charges.
Issues
Whether the death sentence awarded to Accused 1 should be confirmed.
Whether the conviction and sentences of Accused 1 and 2 are sustainable in law.
Whether the acquittal of Accused 3, 4, and 5 is justified and liable to be set aside.
Submissions/Arguments
Accused 1, 2, and 3 pleaded total denial and claimed false implication.
Prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony of injured witnesses and corroborating documentary evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
A1 and A2 had assaulted and injured Sunil with swords upon suspicion of love affair in between Sunil and Pushpa- sister of A2.
The defence of the appellants was that of total denial.
All of them claimed of the witnesses having deposed against them.
Procedural History
FIR lodged on 14.9.2004 based on oral report of PW4; investigation carried out by API Dipak Gotmare (PW16) and others; arrests made on 15.9.2004; charge sheet filed; case committed to Sessions Court; charges framed; trial held; prosecution examined 24 witnesses; defence of total denial; trial court convicted and sentenced on 16.6.2008; death sentence of Accused 1 referred for confirmation; convicts and State filed appeals; High Court heard and reserved judgment on 17.2.2010; judgment pronounced on 30.3.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 34, 452
- Arms Act, 1959: 4, 25, 35
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 135
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
