Case Note & Summary
Background: The appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 16.5.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.93/2015, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of three persons – his father Panjabsingh Gulabsingh Bhada, Anjura Rameshwar Uike, and Gopal Birju Uikey. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment, with fines. He challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Facts: The prosecution case, as per the complaint lodged by Rajeshsingh Panjabsingh Bhada (PW1) on 24.1.2015, was that the accused had an illicit relationship with deceased Anjura. The accused’s father, Panjabsingh, often scolded him over this, leading to disputes. On 23.1.2015, after the informant and his family had gone to sleep, he heard a gunshot around midnight. Coming out, he saw his sister Savita Kour crying and the accused leaving the house holding a ‘Bharmar Gun’. He found his father in a pool of blood. Savita, residing nearby, informed that the accused had also killed Anjura and her brother Gopal. The informant saw both lying in a pool of blood. The motive was stated to be the accused’s anger over his father’s scolding and his suspicion about Anjura and Gopal being seen together. The crime was registered, and investigation led to recovery of a gun, knife, and other materials. The accused was arrested on 24.1.2015. Legal Issues: The main questions before the High Court were whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable given the dark night and absence of electricity, whether the non-examination of independent witnesses was fatal, the effect of PW1 turning hostile, and whether the failure to send the weapons for ballistic examination created doubt. The fundamental issue was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Arguments: The appellant, through counsel, argued that the incident occurred in a dark night, making identification by PW2 Savita doubtful. No independent witnesses from the dense locality were examined. PW1 Rajesh (brother) did not support the prosecution. The weapons were not forwarded to the ballistic expert, so their use could not be conclusively linked. Reliance was placed on several precedents. The State, per contra, submitted that direct evidence of PW2 and PW5 (son of deceased Anjura) was cogent, PW1’s hostility did not destroy the case, and circumstantial evidence of recoveries and CA reports corroborated the prosecution. Court’s Analysis: The court noted that there was no dispute that the three deaths were caused. It proceeded to examine the medical evidence of PW4 Dr. Pramod Potdar, who conducted the postmortem and detailed multiple gunshot and incised wounds on the deceased. The court was in the process of assessing the homicidal nature of the deaths and the reliability of the other evidence when the available judgment extract ends. Decision: The available portion of the judgment does not contain the final order of the High Court. The matter was closed for judgment on 26.9.2025 and pronounced on 17.10.2025, but the concluding part is not provided.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law – Murder – Proof – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – The prosecution alleged that the accused committed triple murder of his father and two others, driven by disputes over his illicit relationship and suspicion. The trial court accepted the direct testimony of eye-witnesses PW2 Savita and PW5 Sagar, supported by medical evidence of homicidal deaths and recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, to convict. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds including unreliable identification, failure to examine independent witnesses, and lack of ballistic expert examination. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 11, 13) B) Criminal Law – Evidence – Hostile Witness – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The first informant and brother of the accused, PW1 Rajesh Bhada, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The court noted that while his testimony turned hostile, the prosecution still relied on other eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. (Paras 12, 13) C) Criminal Law – Investigation – Recovery of Weapons – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 – The investigation included recovery of a ‘Bharmar Gun’ and knife on the basis of the accused’s memorandum statement. The appellant argued that these weapons were not forwarded to a ballistic expert, casting doubt on the prosecution’s theory. (Paras 5, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 302 and 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were sustainable in law, particularly given challenges to the reliability of eye-witness identification in dark night without electricity, non-examination of independent witnesses, the impact of a hostile witness, and the absence of a ballistic expert report.
Law Points
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Section 302
- Section 499
- burden of proof
- direct evidence
- circumstantial evidence
- hostile witness
- recovery of weapons
- ballistic expert report
- credibility of eye-witness testimony
- motive
- homicidal death proof
