Case Note & Summary
The appeal was directed against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 30th March, 1996 in Sessions Case No.382 of 1990. The appellant (accused No.1) was convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- with default rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Accused No.2 Munna Yusuf Shaikh, brother-in-law of the appellant, charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, was acquitted for want of evidence. The prosecution case was that the complainant Audumbar Londhe (P.W.1) resided at 54/BP Lohiyanagar, Pune with his family, and the deceased Raju was his youngest son. The appellant also resided in the same area. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen evidence, and recovery of the weapon. The court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and the conviction was sustainable. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 235(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for murder of deceased Raju based on motive, last seen evidence, and recovery of weapon - Court upheld conviction finding chain of circumstances complete - Held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- recovery of weapon
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 235(2) CrPC
