Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellant for Murder and Attempted Murder in Property Dispute — Life Imprisonment for Murder and Seven Years for Attempted Murder Consecutively. The court found the evidence of eye-witnesses credible and the motive of property dispute established, affirming the trial court's judgment under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sunil Anandrao Sawant, was convicted by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 208 of 2002 for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307, with the sentences directed to run consecutively. The appellant appealed against this judgment. The prosecution case was that the appellant and the deceased Sambhaji were real brothers residing in the same ancestral house. There was a dispute regarding partition of the house, as a portion was to be acquired by the Corporation for road widening. The appellant insisted on immediate partition, while Sambhaji wanted to wait until after acquisition. On 31st May 2002 at 5:30 a.m., the appellant attacked his sister-in-law Rajashri (PW7) with an axe while she was washing clothes. When Sambhaji intervened, the appellant also attacked him with the axe, causing fatal injuries. Both Rajashri and Sambhaji fell down, and the appellant continued the assault. Sambhaji died, and Rajashri sustained grievous injuries. The trial court relied on the testimony of eye-witnesses, including Rajashri and her son Sumit (PW6), and medical evidence. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the appeal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on direct evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence - Appellant attacked his brother with an axe causing death - Motive established due to property dispute - Held, conviction proper (Paras 1-10).

B) Criminal Law - Attempted Murder - Section 307 IPC - Appellant attacked his sister-in-law with axe causing grievous injuries - Intention to kill evident from nature of injuries - Held, conviction proper (Paras 1-10).

C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Consecutive Sentences - Sections 302 and 307 IPC - Trial court directed substantive sentences to run consecutively - Held, no interference required (Para 1).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC confirmed.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Attempted Murder
  • Consecutive Sentences
  • Motive
  • Common Intention
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 307 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 54

Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2003

2010-04-23

Smt. Ranjana Desai, Smt. V.K. Tahilramani

Mrs. Pranali Kakade (for Appellant), Mrs. P.H. Kantharia (APP for State)

Sunil Anandrao Sawant

Government of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and attempted murder.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from the High Court.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and seven years RI respectively, with consecutive sentences.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant on 4th March 2003 in Sessions Case No. 208 of 2002.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable. Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable. Whether the sentence of consecutive imprisonment is appropriate.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient and the conviction was erroneous. State argued that the evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence clearly established the guilt.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of eye-witnesses, particularly PW7 Rajashri and PW6 Sumit, coupled with medical evidence, clearly establishes that the appellant intentionally caused the death of Sambhaji and attempted to cause the death of Rajashri. The motive of property dispute is also established. Hence, the conviction is proper.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal, by the appellant / original accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2003 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 208 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 4th March 2003 in Sessions Case No. 208 of 2002. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal on 23rd April 2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellant for Murder and Attempted Murder in Property Dispute — Life Imprisonment for Murder and Seven Years for Attempted Murder Consecutively. The court found the evidence of eye-witnesses credible and the ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Involving Tribal Land Transfer. Decree for specific performance of agreement to sell tribal land to non-tribal can be granted subject to obtaining permission under Section 36A of Mah...