Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Murder and Conspiracy in Auto Rickshaw Driver Killing Case. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Including Last Seen Theory, Motive, and Recovery of Weapon.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 158
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Vishal Ashok Narayane @ Samir Shaikh and Shabana Samir Shaikh, were convicted by the trial court for the murder of an auto rickshaw driver, Ajay Janardan Sindkar (PW1), and other offences. The prosecution case was that on 22nd August 2008, the deceased was last seen with the appellants in an auto rickshaw. The next day, his body was found with stab wounds. The police recovered a knife at the instance of appellant No.1. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 34, 120(b) IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Appellant No.1 was also convicted under Sections 420, 465, 471, 328 IPC, and appellant No.2 under Section 201 IPC. The appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the counsel and perusing the record, found that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, motive, and recovery of the weapon, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellants. The court upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing the appeal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The prosecution relied on the last seen theory, motive, and recovery of the murder weapon to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants. (Paras 3-12)

B) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Section 120B IPC - The court upheld the conviction for criminal conspiracy, finding that the appellants acted in concert to murder the deceased. (Paras 3-12)

C) Criminal Law - Evidence - Recovery of Weapon - The recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant was considered a crucial piece of circumstantial evidence. (Paras 3-12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 34, 120(b) IPC and other sections is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • last seen theory
  • motive
  • recovery of weapon
  • conspiracy
  • conviction under Section 302 IPC
  • Section 120B IPC
  • Section 201 IPC
  • Section 328 IPC
  • Section 420 IPC
  • Section 465 IPC
  • Section 471 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 52

Criminal Appeal No. 1302 of 2013

2019-02-13

A.S. Oka, A.S. Gadkari

Ms. Payoshi Roy i/b. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the appellant, Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the respondent State

Vishal Ashok Narayane @ Samir Shaikh and Shabana Samir Shaikh

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and other offences.

Remedy Sought

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

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the trial court and appealed against the judgment.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants under Sections 302, 34, 120(b) IPC and other sections, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms.

Issues

Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable. Whether the last seen theory and recovery of weapon establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and circumstantial. Prosecution argued that the chain of circumstances was complete.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, motive, and recovery of the murder weapon, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellants, and the conviction was sustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29th November 2013 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.758/2008 @ 272/2009 convicting the appellants under sections 302, 34 and 120(b) of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellants on 29th November 2013. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 1302 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and dismissed on 13th February 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34, 120(b), 420, 465, 471, 328, 201
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Husband and In-Laws for Murder and Cruelty in Dowry Death Case. Appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC for setting deceased on fire due to dowry demands.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Credible Witnesses. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.