Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two connected criminal appeals arising from a trial court decision. Criminal Appeal No.111 of 1991 was filed by Sarjerao Shahaji Kokare, original accused No.1, challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000. Criminal Appeal No.353 of 1991 was filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of original accused Nos.2 to 4 (Bhiva Namdeo Kokare, Kondiba Baba Kokare, and Dinkar Sargerao Kokare). The incident occurred in Bramhapuri, Mangalvedha, Sholapur district. The trial court convicted accused No.1 but acquitted the others. The appellant in the first appeal argued that his conviction was erroneous, while the State contended that the acquittal of the co-accused was unjustified. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal of accused No.1, upholding his conviction under Section 302 IPC. Regarding the State's appeal, the court found no evidence to link accused Nos.2 to 4 to the crime and thus dismissed the appeal, confirming their acquittal. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices V.M. Kanade and A.M. Thipsay on 8th September 2011.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction upheld - Appellant was convicted for murder based on evidence - Court found no reason to interfere with conviction - Held that conviction under Section 302 IPC was proper (Paras 1-3).
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Lack of evidence - State appealed against acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 4 - Court found no evidence to connect them with the crime - Held that acquittal was justified (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of original accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable and whether the acquittal of original accused Nos.2 to 4 is correct.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No.111 of 1991 dismissed, conviction of accused No.1 upheld. Criminal Appeal No.353 of 1991 dismissed, acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 4 confirmed.
Law Points
- Murder
- Section 302 IPC
- Common intention
- Section 34 IPC
- Acquittal
- Appeal against acquittal
- Appreciation of evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (09) 58
Criminal Appeal No.111 of 1991 and Criminal Appeal No.353 of 1991
V. M. Kanade, A.M. Thipsay
Mr. P. M. Mengane for Appellant in Cr.Appeal No.111/1991 and for Respondents in Cr.Appeal No.353/1991; Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent State in Cr.Appeal No.111/1991 and for Appellant State in Cr.Appeal No.353/1991
Sarjerao Shahaji Kokare (in Cr.Appeal No.111/1991); State of Maharashtra (in Cr.Appeal No.353/1991)
State of Maharashtra and Smt. Savitra Bhiva Daule (in Cr.Appeal No.111/1991); Bhiva Namdeo Kokare, Kondiba Baba Kokare, Dinkar Sargerao Kokare (in Cr.Appeal No.353/1991)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal
Remedy Sought
Appellant in Cr.Appeal No.111/1991 sought setting aside of conviction; State in Cr.Appeal No.353/1991 sought conviction of acquitted accused
Filing Reason
Challenge to trial court judgment convicting accused No.1 and acquitting accused Nos.2 to 4
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4
Issues
Whether the conviction of original accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable?
Whether the acquittal of original accused Nos.2 to 4 is correct?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant in Cr.Appeal No.111/1991 argued that conviction was erroneous.
State in Cr.Appeal No.353/1991 argued that acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 4 was unjustified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no reason to interfere with the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and found no evidence to connect accused Nos.2 to 4 with the crime, thus upholding both the conviction and acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 1991 so also the learned APP appearing on behalf of the Appellant – State and the learned Counsel for the Respondents in Criminal Appeal No.353 of 1991.
Both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since Criminal Appeal No.111 of 1991 is filed by original accused No.1 against the judgment & order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and Criminal Appeal No.353 of 1991 is filed by the State against the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court acquitting original accused Nos. 2 to 4.
Appellant – original accused No. 1 was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 2000/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4. Accused No.1 appealed against conviction (Cr.Appeal No.111/1991). State appealed against acquittal (Cr.Appeal No.353/1991). Both appeals were heard together and disposed of by common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
