Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Advocate Pradeep Nalamwar and Vijay Bisne, allegedly carried out at the behest of accused no. 4 Swami, the landlord of the deceased advocate. Advocate Nalamwar was a tenant of Swami and a dispute over vacating the premises provided the motive. On 5 September 2009, accused no. 1 Rajik arrived at Nalamwar's residence and the advocate left with him and others in a sumo vehicle, accompanied by Vijay Bisne. When they did not return, a missing report was lodged and later two bodies were found in Jogapur Forest. Investigation revealed that accused no. 4 Swami conspired with accused no. 3 Lalit, giving him Rs. 2.10 lakhs to engage contract killers. Accused no. 3 Lalit in turn hired accused no. 1 Rajik and accused nos. 7 and 8. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last seen together, call detail records, recovery of a country-made pistol from accused no. 1, ballistic evidence linking the weapon to the bullets extracted from the bodies, motive, and cheque transactions. At trial, 38 witnesses were examined and numerous documents exhibited. The defence was one of total denial, with accused no. 4 claiming the cheques were for his own cash withdrawal and accused no. 3 stating he merely assisted as a gratuitous service. The trial court found the prosecution had established ten circumstances: homicidal death of both victims, recovery of bullets from brain matter, post-mortem reports showing close-range firing, empty and live cartridges at the spot, recovery of the pistol from accused no. 1, ballistic confirmation that the same pistol was used, motive based on landlord-tenant dispute, presence of accused no. 1 with the deceased on the evening of the incident, and the relationship between accused no. 4 and the deceased. On 30 July 2013, the Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, convicted accused nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 for criminal conspiracy and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and additionally convicted accused nos. 1, 7, and 8 for abduction and accused no. 1 under the Arms Act. Accused nos. 2, 5, and 6 were acquitted. The convicted accused filed appeals challenging the appreciation of evidence and the conviction. The High Court's analysis and final decision on these appeals are not contained in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 503 2013 507 2013 572 2013
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 171
Criminal Appeal Nos. 503/2013, 507/2013, 572/2013, 278/2014 & 279/2014
R. M. Daga, M. P. Khajanchi, R. S. Akbari, R. P. Joshi, S. M. Ukey
Lalit Ramesh Prabhawat, Vangipuram Krushnaswami, Abdul Rajik Abdul Nabi Sheikh, Mohan Narayan Putlawar, Sahebrao Mohan Togre
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction under Sections 302, 120B, 364 IPC and Arms Act in a double murder case based on circumstantial evidence.
Remedy Sought
Appellants seek to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Trial court convicted the appellants, who now challenge the appreciation of evidence and correctness of conviction.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Trial No. 14/2000: Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 convicted under Sections 120B, 302 IPC; Accused Nos. 1, 7, 8 convicted under Section 364 r/w 109 IPC; Accused No.1 convicted under Section 3 r/w 25 Arms Act; Accused Nos. 2, 5, 6 acquitted. No appeal against acquittals filed.
Submissions/Arguments
Prosecution alleged that accused no.4 Swami, being the landlord with enmity against deceased Advocate Nalamwar over non-vacation of tenanted premises, conspired with accused no.3 Lalit to eliminate Nalamwar and paid Rs. 2.10 lakhs for the purpose.
Accused no.3 Lalit, in turn, engaged contract killers (accused nos. 1, 7, 8) to execute the murder.
Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last seen together, CDRs, recovery of country-made pistol at the instance of accused no.1, ballistic evidence linking the pistol to the recovered bullets, motive, and financial transactions via cheques.
Defence of all accused was total denial. Accused no.4 Swami explained that the two self-cheques were for withdrawal of his own cash, handed over to accused no.3 Lalit as a routine task. Accused no.3 Lalit stated that he encashed the cheques as a gratuitous service, and there was no payment for murder.
Judgment Excerpts
At that time, Advocate Nalamwar received a phone call from Rajik and talked to him. Within short time, accused no.1 Rajik arrived at the residence of Advocate Nalamwar.
The prosecution case was solely dependent upon circumstantial evidence.
the prosecution was successful in establishing the following circumstances: [1] Both deceased Advocate Nalamwar and Vijay Bisne died of homicidal death. [2] Bullets were recovered from brain matter of both dead bodies by the medical officer; [3] Postmortem reports of both deceased showed that the bullets were fired from the point of blank range; [4] Empty cartridges and two live cartridges were found on the spot of incident; [5] Country made pistol, which was used in commission of offence, recovered at the instance of accused no.1; [6] Ballistic report opined that the bullets found in body of both deceased were fired from same country made pistol which was seized from accused no.1; [7] Motive behind the crime that accused no.4 had animus against deceased Nalamwar for not vacating the premises; [8] Presence of accused no.1 Rajik at the house of deceased Nalamwar on 5.9.2009 in evening; [9] Accused no.4 Vangipuram Krushnaswami was the landlord of deceased Nalamwar; [10] There was dispute b...
Procedural History
On 05.09.2009, Advocate Pradeep Nalamwar and Vijay Bisne were allegedly abducted and murdered. P.W.9 Sadhana Nalamwar lodged a missing report at Rajura Police Station after the victims did not return. The same night, two unidentified bodies were found in Jogapur Forest within Virur Police Station jurisdiction, later identified as the deceased. Investigation was taken over by Virur Police, which collected evidence including CDRs, seized country-made pistol from accused no.1, recovered empty and live cartridges from the spot, obtained ballistic reports, and recorded statements. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed alleging criminal conspiracy and murder. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Warora, as Sessions Trial No. 14/2000. The trial court framed charges against nine accused, examined 38 witnesses, and recorded statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 30.07.2013, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 as stated, while acquitting accused nos. 2, 5, 6. The convicted accused filed separate appeals before the High Court, which are decided by this common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 120B, 302, 364, 109
- Arms Act: 3, 25
- Code of Criminal Procedure: 313
