Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard four criminal appeals against a common judgment of the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 50/2009, which convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 365, 302, 394, 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms. The appellants, Ravindra Jha (A-1), Srinivas Gauramkondu (A-2), Mohammad Imdar Ali (A-3), and Bijoy Kolita (A-4), challenged the conviction on multiple grounds. The case arose from the alleged conspiracy to hire a Maruti van belonging to deceased Sudan Dabhale from Mapusa Bus Stand on 17 July 2009, abduct him, commit robbery and murder, and then dump his body at an isolated spot. The appellants raised the preliminary issue that the registration of two separate FIRs and consequent charge-sheets—one in Sessions Case No. 38/2009 (where A-2 and A-3 were already convicted under Section 364 IPC) and another in the present Sessions Case No. 50/2009—for what they claimed was the same offence or parts of the same transaction, was illegal and prejudicial, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that such double prosecution caused serious prejudice. The State contended that the two FIRs pertained to distinct and different offences with only minor overlaps, and that the evidence, largely circumstantial, was sufficient. The appellants further submitted that the circumstantial evidence was full of gaps and contradictions, that mandatory provisions of Sections 164 and 281 of the Cr.P.C. were not complied with, and that the 'last seen' and confession evidence were unreliable. The State, however, emphasized that the last seen circumstance was proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the confessions recorded under Section 30 of the Evidence Act could be used against co-accused, and that conspiracy was inferential from conduct. The court reserved judgment on 25 January 2019 and pronounced it on 8 February 2019, but the provided excerpt ends before the final decision and ratio. The case highlights the legal scrutiny of multiple FIRs for the same transaction and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in serious criminal charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure – Registration of Multiple First Information Reports – Legality and Prejudice – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154; Constitution of India, Article 21 – Appellants contended that two FIRs (Sessions Case Nos. 38/2009 and 50/2009) were lodged for the same transaction, violating Article 21, and relied on Babubhai and Amitbhai cases. Court considered the gist of both charge-sheets to determine if they pertained to the same offence or parts of the same transaction (Paras 11-13).
B) Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 30 – The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence including last seen, confessions, and conspiracy; appellants argued that evidence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and there were contradictions. Court noted that minor discrepancies do not necessarily vitiate conviction, but overall appreciation of evidence was required (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the registration of two FIRs leading to two separate sessions cases for the same transaction was illegal and caused prejudice to the accused; and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Law Points
- double FIR
- circumstantial evidence
- last seen
- conspiracy
- confession
- hostile witness
- compliance with CrPC
- prejudice
- Article 21
- standard of proof
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 107
Criminal Appeals No. 2/2017, 16/2017, 72/2016 and 1/2019
M.S. Sonak, Prithviraj K. Chavan
Salil Saudagar, Suzette Pereira, Arun de Sa, Vivek Angelo Rodrigues, S. R. Rivankar
Ravindra Jha, Srinivas Gauramkondu, Mohammad Imdar Ali, Bijoy Kolita
State (through Public Prosecutor, Panaji, Goa)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for offences under IPC including murder, abduction, robbery, and conspiracy.
Remedy Sought
Appellants seek to set aside their conviction and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 50/2009.
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted under Sections 365, 302, 394, 201 read with 120-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, among other sentences; they challenged the legality of the trial, the registration of multiple FIRs, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 50/2009 convicted all four appellants; additionally, A-2 and A-3 were earlier convicted in Sessions Case No. 38/2009 under Section 364 IPC.
Issues
Whether the registration of two FIRs and consequent charge-sheets (in Sessions Case Nos. 38/2009 and 50/2009) for what the appellants claim to be the same offence or parts of the same transaction was illegal and caused prejudice, violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the circumstantial evidence, including last seen, confessions, and conspiracy, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and whether mandatory provisions of Sections 164 and 281 Cr.P.C. were complied with.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the two FIRs and charge-sheets relate to one and the same offence or parts of the same transaction, making the second prosecution illegal and causing serious prejudice; they relied on Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. State of Gujarat.
Appellants submitted that the prosecution's case, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, was full of holes and contradictions, and that mandatory provisions of Sections 164 and 281 Cr.P.C. were not complied with, warranting acquittal.
The State contended that the two FIRs and charge-sheets pertain to distinct and different offences, with only minor overlap, and that there was no sameness to attract the double prosecution bar.
The State argued that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen circumstance, confessions admissible under Section 30 Evidence Act, and inferential conspiracy, proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that minor discrepancies should not overturn the conviction.
Judgment Excerpts
"In all these appeals instituted under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (Cr.P.C.), the appellants challenge the common Judgment and Order in Sessions Case No.50/2009 made by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, at Panaji, convicting the Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 394 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them, inter alia, to undergo Life Imprisonment."
"The learned Counsel for the Appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the two First Information Reports (FIRs), on the basis of which the two charge-sheets, and eventually the two sessions cases i.e. Sessions Case No.38/2009 and 50/2009 (present case) came to be launched relate to one and the same offence or in any case, relate to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction, according to the case putforth by the prosecution itself."
"In Sessions Case No.50/2009 (present case), as noted earlier, gist of the charge-sheet is that all the accused persons, which includes A.2 Srinivas and A.3 Ali hatched criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of it, engaged the Maruti van of the deceased Sudan Dabhale from Mapusa Bus Stand on 17 Ju..."
Procedural History
The appellants were convicted in Sessions Case No. 50/2009 by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, for offences under IPC and sentenced. A-2 and A-3 had already been convicted separately in Sessions Case No. 38/2009. All four appellants filed separate criminal appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which were heard together and reserved for judgment on 25 January 2019, and pronounced on 8 February 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 365, 302, 394, 201, 120-B, 397, 364
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 164, 281, 374, 428
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 30
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21
