Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Sahebrao and Ramesh Shejul against their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 each with a default clause. The prosecution case was that on the date of incident, the appellants assaulted the deceased and another person with axes and sticks over a land dispute. The trial court relied on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses and medical evidence to convict the appellants. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the eyewitnesses were natural witnesses and their testimony was consistent with the medical evidence. The court held that the common intention of the appellants to cause death was clearly established. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Sections 302, 324, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellants convicted for murder and causing hurt with axes and sticks - Deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage from injuries - Injured eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence - Held that conviction is sustainable as common intention to cause death was established (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009, dated 30th October, 2010, are confirmed.
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Murder under Section 302 IPC
- Hurt under Section 324 IPC
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal
- Credibility of injured eyewitnesses
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 31
Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2010
A. H. Joshi, A. V. Nirgude
Shri Satej S. Jadhav for the appellants, Shri V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
Sahebrao s/o Kaduba Shejul and Ramesh s/o Kaduba Shejul
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and hurt
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the common intention was not proved
State argued that the eyewitnesses were credible and medical evidence supported the prosecution case
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the testimony of injured eyewitnesses is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, and the common intention of the appellants to cause death was established, making the conviction under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge2, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009, dated 30th October, 2010, convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Procedural History
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, on 30th October 2010 in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009. They appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, which reserved judgment on 10th July 2012 and pronounced on 16th July 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324, 34
