Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Arjun Gopal Maharana, was convicted by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.24 of 2005 for the murder of Shamim under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000. He was also acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, which the State did not appeal. The prosecution case was that the appellant, the deceased Shamim, and the complainant Ramcharan were building construction laborers working at a site owned by PW2 Sunil. There was a dispute because the complainant and deceased alleged that the appellant had stolen money and articles belonging to the deceased, leading to frequent quarrels. On the night of 5 July 2004, PW1 Mohan, while going out to answer nature's call, heard shouts and saw the appellant assaulting the complainant Ramcharan with an iron bar. PW1 knew the appellant as a laborer in the area and caught hold of him. The appellant was convicted based on the eye witness testimony of PW1 Mohan, which was corroborated by medical evidence and the motive of theft. The court found the testimony credible and upheld the conviction. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on eye witness testimony - The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of PW1 Mohan, an eye witness who saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with an iron bar. The court held that the testimony of the eye witness was credible and corroborated by the medical evidence and the motive of theft. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal under Section 307 IPC - Not challenged by State - The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC, and the State did not prefer an appeal against the acquittal. The court noted that the acquittal was not challenged and therefore the conviction under Section 302 IPC was the only issue. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of eye witness PW1 Mohan and the motive established by the prosecution.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Murder
- Section 302 IPC
- Eye witness testimony
- Motive
- Acquittal under Section 307 IPC not challenged
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 105
Criminal Appeal No.1027 of 2005
Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, A. R. Joshi
Mr. Murtaza M. Najmi (appointed) for the Appellant, Mrs. Shilpa Gajare – Dhumal, APP for the Respondent – State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
The appellant was convicted by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.24 of 2005 on 16th June, 2005.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of eye witness PW1 Mohan and the motive established by the prosecution.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued against the conviction.
Respondent State supported the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of the eye witness PW1 Mohan, who saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with an iron bar, is credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the motive of theft. Hence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By the impugned judgment and order, appellant/orig.accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/, in default to undergo SI for three months.
The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : Complainant – Ramcharan, deceased Shamim and present appellant/accused were in fact working together as building construction labours.
On the day of the incident i.e. on 5.7.2004, at night PW1 Mohan was at his home watching some TV programme. After some time, he went out to answer the natures call and was proceeding towards one building. That time, he heard some shouts as well as hue and cry. He enquired as to what was happening. He saw one injured person i.e. complainant Ramcharan coming from one room and he was being assaulted by the present appellant/accused with the help of one iron bar.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.24 of 2005 on 16th June, 2005. The appellant preferred the present Criminal Appeal No.1027 of 2005 through jail challenging the conviction and sentence.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 307
