Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 27-5-1998 at about 7:00 p.m. opposite a pan shop of Baban @ Babasaheb Ibrahim Mulla in village Shinganapur, Taluka Jath, District Sangli. The appellants, Dattu Khandu Pandhare and Sukhdeo Hanmant Pandhare, were convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.199 of 1998 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000 each, with default simple imprisonment for one month. The FIR was lodged by PW 7 Ramchandra Babasaheb Patil, son of the deceased Babasaheb Patil. The prosecution case is that the appellants assaulted the deceased with stones and a stick, causing fatal injuries. The trial court relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence to convict the appellants. The appellants challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, found no merit in the appeal. The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and corroborated by the medical evidence, and the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 deceased by assaulting him with stones and stick - Evidence of eyewitnesses found credible and corroborated by medical evidence - Held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal is dismissed (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC upheld
- Common intention established by simultaneous assault
- Medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony
- Motive not essential when direct evidence is credible
