Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in Murder Case Under Section 302 IPC — Life Imprisonment Maintained. Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Established as Multiple Assailants Armed with Deadly Weapons Participated in the Attack on the Victim.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 73
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case pertains to an incident that occurred on 23 October 1993, when the victim Prabhakar Sawant was driving his autorickshaw accompanied by PW-1 Chandrakant Govalkar, PW-2 Dhanaji Dhopate, and PW-5 Babu Patel. When they reached in front of Laxmi Hotel at Shivaji Nagar on Daftary Linking Road, Malad, a massive assault was committed upon the victim by three persons armed with a sword and choppers. The assailants thrashed the rooftop over the head of the autorickshaw driver and tore it apart, causing the autorickshaw to collide with an electric pole. The victim got out and started running away, but the assailants chased him and inflicted multiple injuries on his legs, hands, and head, causing him to fall down in front of Laxmi Hotel. Police Head Constable PW-3 Dinkar Bhimaji Rokde and Police Naik PW-8 Vasant Vithal Kale, who were on patrol duty nearby, arrived at the scene and apprehended the accused. The appellants, original accused No.1 Vilas @ Hari Om Tatoba Ghag and accused No.3 Dilip Ramchandra Suryavanshi, were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.1349 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine. Accused No.2 Angad Malkhansingh Mahajit expired during the trial and the case against him was abated. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence before the Bombay High Court. The court heard the respective counsel and examined the evidence. The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The court dismissed both appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - The appellants were convicted for murder of the victim who was attacked by three persons armed with sword and choppers - The court held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence - The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.1349 of 1995 are upheld.

Law Points

  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Common Intention
  • Murder
  • Life Imprisonment
  • Appreciation of Evidence
  • Credibility of Witnesses
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 51

Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2004

2012-04-27

B.R. Gavai, Shrihari P. Davare

Mr. Shriram Shirsat, Mr. Manohar Kandalkar (for appellant in Appeal No.551/2004), Mr. Yug Mohit Chaudhari (for respondent in Appeal No.912/2004), Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP (for Respondent – State)

Vilas @ Hari Om Tatoba Ghag (Appeal No.551/2004) and Dilip Ramchandra Suryavanshi (Appeal No.912/2004)

State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellants on 12 March 2004 in Sessions Case No.1349 of 1995

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt Respondent State argued that the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence established the guilt

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was sustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard the respective Counsel for the parties. By the present two Appeals, the appellants i.e. Original accused No. 1 – Vilas @ Hari Om Tatoba Ghag and accused No.3 – Dilip Ramchandra Suryavanshi have taken the exception to the conviction and sentence imposed upon them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellants on 12 March 2004 in Sessions Case No.1349 of 1995. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the appeals and dismissed them on 27 April 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Redevelopment Scheme Under DCR 33(7) — Consents Verified and Video Recorded. Tenants Who Refused to Vacate Were Issued Notices Under Section 95A of MHADA Act, 1976; Court Found No Merit in Grievance.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in Murder Case Under Section 302 IPC — Life Imprisonment Maintained. Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Established as Multiple Assailants Armed with Deadly Weapons Participated in the Attack on th...