Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the conviction of two appellants, Palani @ Panni Wilswami Shetty (A1) and Kishor @ Kishya Raghunath Londhe (A2), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 392 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 17.8.1997, a motor lorry bearing registration No.MH-06-7094 owned by Dhanji Devshi Dharamshi was loaded with maida (flour) at Khopoli. The driver Vishnu Gopal Nirmal was found murdered and the maida bags were stolen. The appellants were arrested and convicted. The High Court heard both appeals together. The court examined the evidence including last seen evidence, recovery of stolen property, and extra-judicial confession. The court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the accused. The court upheld the conviction and sentences, dismissing both appeals.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Robbery - Sections 302, 392, 397, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - The appellants were convicted for murder and robbery of a truck driver during a theft of maida bags. The court examined the evidence of last seen, recovery of stolen property, and extra-judicial confession. Held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Applicability in cases of murder during robbery - The court held that where two persons act in concert to commit robbery and one commits murder, both are liable for murder under Section 34 if the murder was in furtherance of the common intention. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 392 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed. Conviction and sentences upheld.
Law Points
- Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
- Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC
- Common intention
- Dacoity with murder
- Circumstantial evidence
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 61
Criminal Appeal No.624 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2000
Mr. H.A. Solkar for appellant (A1), Ms. Sonia Bankapurkar for appellant (A2), Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal for respondent/State
Shri Palani @ Panni Wilswami Shetty (A1) and Kishor @ Kishya Raghunath Londhe (A2)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for murder and robbery
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from the High Court
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 392 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC
Previous Decisions
Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai convicted both appellants on 31.01.2000
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable?
Whether the conviction under Sections 392 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and circumstantial
State argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to guilt
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including last seen and recovery of stolen property, established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The common intention under Section 34 IPC was made out as both acted in concert to commit robbery and murder.
Judgment Excerpts
In a nut shell, the prosecution case is that on 17.8.1997, a motor lorry bearing registration No.MH-06-7094 owned by Dhanji Devshi dharamshi was loaded with maida (floor) at Khopoli.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted them for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentenced to under go life imprisonment and also fine in the sum of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go further imprisonment for 3 months.
Procedural History
The appellants were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai on 31.01.2000. They filed separate appeals before the Bombay High Court, which were heard together and disposed of by common judgment on 19.01.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34, 392, 397
