Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Two Brothers for Murder of Third Brother over Property Dispute. Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Established as Both Accused Participated in Assault Leading to Death.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 118
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Tukaram Jagannath Kokare and Tulshiram Jagannath Kokare, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.120 of 1999 for the murder of their brother Sopan under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved, they appealed to the Bombay High Court. The prosecution case was that the victim Sopan, at the behest of his brother Namdev, approached the appellants at their parents' house in Koprevasti to demand partition of inherited property. Irked by this request, Tulshiram struck Sopan on the head with a stick, causing bleeding. Both appellants then lifted Sopan and threw him on the ground, causing further injury. Sopan died at the scene. Namdev attempted to catch the fleeing appellants but failed, and later called Dr. Ranaware who declared Sopan dead. A complaint was lodged and the appellants were arrested. The trial court convicted them based on the testimony of eyewitnesses including the victim's wife, daughter, and brother Namdev, as well as medical evidence. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the eyewitness accounts were consistent and credible, and the medical evidence supported the cause of death as head injury. The court held that the common intention of the appellants to cause death was established by their concerted actions. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellants convicted for murder of their brother following a property dispute - Evidence of eyewitnesses including wife and daughter of victim, and brother Namdev, established that accused Tulshiram struck victim on head with stick and both accused lifted and threw him on ground causing fatal injuries - Medical evidence corroborated cause of death as head injury - Held that common intention was proved as both accused acted in concert to assault victim (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of their brother is sustainable on the evidence adduced.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- are upheld.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Common Intention
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Life Imprisonment
  • Property Dispute Motive
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 60

Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2001

2005-04-11

V.G. Palshikar, Smt. Nishita Mhatre

Mr. Abhaykumar Apte (for Appellants), Mrs. P.H. Kantharia (Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent)

Tukaram Jagannath Kokare and Tulshiram Jagannath Kokare

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants in Sessions Case No.120 of 1999 on 30th January 2001

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove common intention and that the injuries were not fatal. Prosecution contended that the eyewitness accounts were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing murder with common intention.

Ratio Decidendi

The common intention to cause death can be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused in assaulting the victim with a stick and throwing him on the ground, resulting in fatal head injuries, as corroborated by eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

Irked by this request, Tulshiram dealt a blow on the head of Sopan with a stick. Thereafter, both the accused lifted the victim and threw him on the ground resulting in a further injury to the victim.

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.120 of 1999 on 30th January 2001. They appealed to the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2001, which was dismissed on 11th April 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Two Brothers for Murder of Third Brother over Property Dispute. Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Established as Both Accused Participated in Assault Leading to Death.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Provisional Acceptance of Change Report in Trust Dispute Due to Non-Application of Mind and Delay Beyond Statutory Period. Section 22(2) of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 requires provisional acceptance within 15 days o...