Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Murder Conviction in Loni Axe Killing. Live-in Partner's Murder Proved Through Partly Hostile Eyewitness, Blood Evidence, and Call Records Under Section 302 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Maya, his live-in partner of five years. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 07 of 2010, sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution case was that on 27 November 2009, at about noon, the appellant and Maya went to their neighbour’s room after their own dilapidated room collapsed. A quarrel ensued, and the appellant picked up an axe and struck Maya multiple times on the head, killing her instantly. Maya’s brother (PW5) lodged the FIR upon seeing her dead body. The appellant was arrested, his clothes seized and sent for chemical analysis. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, including Maya’s father (PW8) and brother (PW5), who were not eyewitnesses but provided background. PW5 stated that Maya had complained of ill-treatment. PW8 testified that he received a phone call from the appellant admitting to the assault. Call detail records confirmed a call from a number linked to the appellant’s location to PW8’s number. Among the eyewitnesses, PW3 Baburao saw the appellant and Maya near the scene before the incident. His wife, PW1 Yelanbai, initially turned hostile but later described how the appellant gave axe blows to Maya’s head. She exhibited fear of the accused, and the trial judge noted her frightened demeanour. PW6, a child witness, gave conflicting statements but confirmed hearing a quarrel. The medical evidence showed seven crush injuries on Maya’s head caused by a hard, blunt object. The scene of offence panchanama and the recovery of a blood-stained axe with hair corroborated the occurrence. The chemical analyser’s report indicated that the appellant’s clothes bore human blood of group ‘A’. The trial court found the testimony of PW1 credible despite her hostility, as it was corroborated by the other evidence. The appellant’s counsel challenged these findings, particularly the reliance on PW1 and the blood evidence. The High Court, after reserving judgment, delivered its decision on 16 August 2012. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court confirmed that the prosecution had proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular and circumstantial evidence, including the credible part of the hostile witness’s testimony, the child witness’s corroboration, and the forensic link established through the blood-stained clothes.

Headnote

A) Evidence - Hostile Witness - Corroboration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154 - The trial court accepted the testimony of PW1, who gave contradictory statements but eventually described the murder; her fright and demeanor were noted; her testimony was corroborated by the scene of offence panchanama and medical evidence (Paras 16-20, 22-23, 29).

B) Criminal Law - Child Witness - Reliability - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 118 - The evidence of a 13-year-old child witness (PW6) who confirmed hearing a quarrel and seeing the appellant and deceased was considered; his initial denial and subsequent emotional breakdown were scrutinized (Paras 11-13, 29).

C) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Blood-Stained Clothes - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - The chemical analyser's report revealed that the appellant's clothes were stained with human blood of the same group as the deceased, providing a strong link (Paras 27, 30).

D) Criminal Law - Murder - Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The appellant struck the deceased multiple times on the head with an axe, causing instantaneous death; the act showed intent to kill, and the live-in relationship and prior quarrel supplied motive (Paras 2, 5, 22, 28).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of a hostile witness and contradictory evidence of a child witness, and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • hostile witness corroboration
  • circumstantial evidence
  • child witness testimony
  • murder conviction
  • live-in relationship
  • axe murder
  • scene of offence
  • chemical analyser report
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 24

Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2011

2012-08-16

A. H. Joshi, A. V. Nirgude

V.N. Damle, R.B. Ade, V.A. Shinde

Nanasaheb alias Sharad Madhav Varade

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the judgment of the trial court convicting him under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment, and to be acquitted.

Filing Reason

The appellant was convicted for murdering his live-in partner, Maya, by striking her with an axe multiple times on the head, allegedly due to a quarrel.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 07 of 2010, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine.

Issues

Whether the testimony of a hostile witness (PW1) can be relied upon for conviction. Whether the evidence of a child witness (PW6) is credible and can corroborate other evidence. Whether the circumstantial evidence of blood-stained clothes is sufficient to connect the accused to the crime. Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of PW1, a hostile witness who gave contradictory statements. The evidence of child witness PW6 was unreliable and should not have been used for corroboration. The blood-stained clothes evidence was planted, as indicated by the lack of crime number in the arrest panchnama.

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a hostile witness if the incriminating part is corroborated by other credible evidence and the witness's demeanor suggests truthfulness, despite partial retraction.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ with a default clause. While recording the examination in chief she frightened and she was avoiding to give answers. She was saying that the accused be taken out. It appeared that she was frightened to the accused. The clothes of the appellant were given Exh.6 and 7 and the Chemical Analyzer clearly mentioned that they were found stained with blood group ‘A’.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellant on 18 December 2010. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2011 before the High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 5 July 2012 and delivered it on 16 August 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Murder Conviction in Loni Axe Killing. Live-in Partner's Murder Proved Through Partly Hostile Eyewitness, Blood Evidence, and Call Records Under Section 302 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Hears Writ Petition Challenging Attachment and Proposed Sale of Residential Bungalow under Income Tax Act, 1961, on Ground of Limitation. Petitioner Contends That Tax Recovery Officer's Action Is Time-Barred Under Rule 68B of Second...