Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellants in Murder and Grievous Hurt Case — Common Intention and Unlawful Assembly Established. The court confirmed life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and four years RI for grievous hurt under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment pertains to two criminal appeals arising from Sessions Trial No. 117/2003. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2006, Sachin Chate and Sandip Waghmare, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The other accused in Criminal Appeal No. 120/2006 (filed by the State) were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC for grievous hurt and sentenced to four years RI and fine. The incident involved a group assault resulting in one death and injuries to others. The trial court found that the appellants shared common intention to murder, while the other accused were part of an unlawful assembly with common object to cause grievous hurt. The High Court, after hearing arguments, upheld the convictions, finding no merit in the appeals. The court noted that the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical reports supported the prosecution case. The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were confirmed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - The appellants were convicted for murder based on evidence of common intention to cause death in a group assault. The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants shared common intention to commit murder. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Unlawful Assembly - Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC - The other accused were convicted for causing grievous hurt as members of an unlawful assembly. The court held that the prosecution established the existence of an unlawful assembly with common object to cause grievous hurt. (Paras 1-10)

C) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - The trial court acquitted some accused due to lack of evidence. The High Court upheld the acquittals as no perversity was shown. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants are guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and whether the other accused are guilty of grievous hurt under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC based on the evidence of common intention and unlawful assembly.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are confirmed.

Law Points

  • Common intention
  • Unlawful assembly
  • Murder
  • Grievous hurt
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 326 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Section 149 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 157

Criminal Appeal No. 3/2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 120/2006

2010-09-24

A.H. Joshi, A.P. Bhangale

Mr. R.M. Daga (for appellants in Cr.Appeal No.3/2006), Mr. D.B. Patel (Addl. PP for respondent in Cr.Appeal No.3/2006 and appellant in Cr.Appeal No.120/2006), Mr. S.A. Sainis h/f Shri A.S. Manohar (for respondents 1,5,6,8 in Cr.Appeal No.120/2006), Smt. A.A. Joshi (for respondent no.4 in Cr.Appeal No.120/2006)

Sachin s/o Keshao Chate, Sandip Kishor Waghmare (in Cr.Appeal No.3/2006); State of Maharashtra (in Cr.Appeal No.120/2006)

State of Maharashtra (in Cr.Appeal No.3/2006); Lalji alias Rajkumar Ramavatar Yadav, Suraj Bhimrao Vaidya, Dhiraj Suraj Wankhede, Ankush Bhaurao Masram, Prakash Jyotiram Ingale, Kailas Jyotiram Ingale, Dinesh alias Munna Ramavatar Yadav, Narendra alias Guddu Hariprasad Dubey (in Cr.Appeal No.120/2006)

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for murder and grievous hurt.

Remedy Sought

Appellants in Cr.Appeal No.3/2006 sought acquittal; State in Cr.Appeal No.120/2006 sought enhancement of sentence or conviction for graver offence.

Filing Reason

Challenge to the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the other accused for grievous hurt under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

Previous Decisions

Trial court (1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha) convicted the appellants and other accused on 20th October 2005 in Sessions Trial No. 117/2003.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable? Whether the conviction under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove common intention. State argued that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and the convictions should be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants shared common intention to commit murder and the other accused were members of an unlawful assembly with common object to cause grievous hurt. The evidence of eyewitnesses and medical reports corroborated the prosecution case.

Judgment Excerpts

Criminal Appeal No. 3/2006 is preferred by the appellants/convicts challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 20th October, 2005 passed by learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 117/2003 whereby the learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellants and other accused on 20th October 2005. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 3/2006 challenging their conviction and sentence. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 120/2006 against the acquittal of some accused or for enhancement. Both appeals were heard together and dismissed by the High Court on 24th September 2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 326, 34, 149
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellants in Murder and Grievous Hurt Case — Common Intention and Unlawful Assembly Established. The court confirmed life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and four years RI ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds BDA's Power to Allot Civic Amenity Site on Lease and Demand Lease Rentals Under Regulation 7.1(2) of Revised Master Plan 2015. Regulation 7.1(2) is not ultra vires the BDA Act or the Allotment Rules, 1989.