Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two appeals arising from the same incident: Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2003 filed by seven convicted accused challenging their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2004 filed by the State challenging the acquittal of original accused No.4. The prosecution case was that on the date of incident, the accused persons, who were relatives, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased Murlidhar with weapons due to prior enmity over a land dispute. The complainant Dadarao Machindra Shinde (PW1) and other eyewitnesses testified to the attack. The trial court convicted seven accused and acquitted one. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found the evidence of eyewitnesses credible and consistent with medical evidence, and upheld the conviction of the seven appellants. Regarding the acquitted accused, the court found no perversity in the trial court's decision and dismissed the State's appeal. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the convicted accused, but failed to do so against the acquitted accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Unlawful Assembly - Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC - Conviction - Appellants were convicted for murder of Murlidhar by forming an unlawful assembly and attacking him with weapons due to prior enmity over land - The court upheld the conviction based on consistent testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence - Held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 2-10).
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appreciation of Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - Original accused No.4 was acquitted due to lack of specific overt act and insufficient evidence - The State's appeal against acquittal was dismissed as no perversity was found in the trial court's reasoning - Held that the acquittal was proper (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable and whether the acquittal of original accused No.4 is justified.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2003 is dismissed, upholding the conviction of the appellants. Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2004 is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of original accused No.4.
Law Points
- Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC
- Common intention
- Unlawful assembly
- Acquittal
- Appreciation of evidence
- Credibility of witnesses
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 64
Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2003 with Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2004
Mrs.Sadhana S. Jadhav for the appellants, Mr.S.S.Pednekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
Ratu @ Ratnakar Shamrao Kale, Satu @ Satish Shamrao Kale, Shankar Bhimrao Kale, Maruti Soma Shinde, Sahadeo Kerappa Kale, Dharma Nagnath Hake (Patil), Shamrao Bhayaji Kale, Tanaji Shamrao Kale
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 sought acquittal; State sought conviction of acquitted accused.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC; State challenged acquittal of original accused No.4.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted seven accused and acquitted one accused in Sessions Case No.257/2001 on 15.7.2003.
Issues
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable?
Whether the acquittal of original accused No.4 is justified?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and witnesses were unreliable.
State argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable when the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with common intention to commit murder, supported by credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. Acquittal is proper when there is no specific overt act attributed to the accused and evidence is insufficient.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution case in a nut-shell is as follows:-
Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2003 is directed against the judgement and order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case no.257/2001 whereby the appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one month.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted seven accused and acquitted one on 15.7.2003. The convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2003, and the State filed Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2004 against the acquittal. Both appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment on 24.9.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 149
