Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals by original accused No.1 (Sunil Shripal Sarde) and accused No.2 (Baby Dipak Pawar) against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Dipak Pawar, the husband of accused No.2 and brother of accused No.1. The prosecution case was that the victim Dipak Pawar was residing with his wife (accused No.2) and children. There was a property dispute between the victim and accused No.1. On the day of the incident, the victim left his house with accused No.1 and was not seen alive thereafter. The dead body was found in a well. The trial court convicted both accused based on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen together, and recovery of articles. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the chain of circumstances was complete and upheld the conviction. The court also condoned the delay in filing the appeal by accused No.2 and heard both appeals together. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Last Seen Theory - Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellants, husband and wife, were convicted for the murder of the husband's brother. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including motive (property dispute), last seen together, and recovery of articles. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 1-13)
B) Criminal Law - Appeal - Condonation of Delay - The appeal of accused No.2 was filed belatedly in 2012 against a 2004 judgment. The court condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- conviction upheld
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 72
Criminal Appeal No.1378 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No.1320 of 2012
Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, A. R. Joshi
Mrs. B.P. Jakhade (appointed) for appellant in Cri.Appeal No.1378/2004, Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for Respondent – State in both Appeals, Mr. Arfan Sait, Advocate for appellant in Cri.Appeal No.1320 of 2012
Sunil Shripal Sarde (Accused No.1) and Baby Dipak Pawar (Accused No.2)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for murder
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the trial court for murder of Dipak Pawar
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted both accused on 27th February, 2004 in Sessions Case No.87 of 2003
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Whether the delay in filing appeal by accused No.2 should be condoned.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and circumstantial.
State argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to guilt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen together, and recovery of articles, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the conviction was upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard rival submissions on both the appeals which are respectively preferred by original accused No.1 and original accused No.2 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 27th February, 2004 passed by III Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.87 of 2003.
The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : Initially the victim Dipak Pawar, his wife Baby Pawar (Appellant/accused No.2) and his children – including PW3 Manisha and PW5 Dipali were residing together at Koregaon Bhima, District – Pune.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellants on 27th February, 2004. Accused No.1 filed appeal in 2004. Accused No.2 filed appeal belatedly in 2012 with condonation application. The High Court condoned delay and heard both appeals together, dismissing them on 17th December, 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34
