Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Arvind Ananda Bandal (husband of the deceased), Bajirao Arvind Bandal (son), and Hanmant Ananda Bandal (brother of Arvind), were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, for the murder of Kusum, wife of Arvind, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 15 March 2005, at about 6 a.m., the three accused entered the house where the deceased was sleeping, and Arvind sat on her chest, Bajirao held her hands, and Hanmant held her legs, while Arvind strangulated her. The sole eyewitness was the minor daughter Minakshi (PW-3), who was present in the house. The post-mortem report indicated death due to asphyxia by throttling. The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the testimony of PW-3 was unreliable and that there was no other evidence. The High Court examined the evidence and found PW-3's testimony to be natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The court noted that the minor witness had no reason to falsely implicate her own father and brother. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony of minor daughter - Court held that the testimony of PW-3, a 14-year-old girl, was credible and reliable, and the medical evidence corroborated the manner of death by throttling - The appeal against conviction was dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of the sole eyewitness, a minor daughter, and other circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2005 are upheld.
Law Points
- Murder
- Common Intention
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Credibility of Eyewitness
- Minor Witness
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2007
B. H. Marlapalle, U. D. Salvi
Mr. Nitin Pradhan with Mr. Dattatray Adarkar i/by Ms. S. D. Khot for appellants, Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for State
Arvind Ananda Bandal, Bajirao Arvind Bandal, Hanmant Ananda Bandal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, for the murder of Kusum, wife of appellant no.1.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine.
Issues
Whether the testimony of the sole eyewitness, a minor daughter, is credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Whether the medical evidence corroborates the manner of death as alleged by the prosecution.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the testimony of PW-3 (Minakshi) was unreliable as she was a minor and there were contradictions.
State argued that PW-3's testimony was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, and that the minor had no reason to falsely implicate her own father and brother.
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of a minor eyewitness, if found credible and corroborated by medical evidence, can form the basis of conviction. The court held that PW-3's evidence was reliable and the medical evidence supported the prosecution case of death by throttling.
Judgment Excerpts
The cause of death shown in the post mortem report was 'asphyxia due to throttling'.
All the accused entered the room, where the deceased was sleeping and accused no.1 sat on her chest, accused no.2 held her hands and accused no.3 held her legs.
Procedural History
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2005. They appealed to the High Court under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 374
