Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder in Protection Money Dispute — Common Intention Established Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The court affirmed the life sentence of two appellants who stabbed a victim to death for intervening when they demanded protection money from a shopkeeper.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 124
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Sadashiv Muttappa Aiwale and Mohan Kumar Hatale, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, for the murder of Rafiq under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 13th March 2000 at about 10:45 a.m. when the appellants approached a paan shop run by the complainant and demanded protection money. The victim, who was known to the appellants, intervened and requested them not to insist on payment. Enraged, appellant No.1 stabbed the victim in the abdomen, and appellant No.2 stabbed him two or three times with a knife. The victim staggered to a nearby turmeric factory, collapsed, and was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries within two hours. The appellants fled the scene. A FIR was lodged by the complainant, and the appellants were arrested. The trial court convicted them, and they appealed to the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the appointed advocate for the appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor, upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and recovery of weapons proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the common intention to commit murder was clearly established by the concerted actions of both appellants.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Sections 302, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellants were convicted for murdering the victim who intervened when they demanded protection money from a shopkeeper. The court held that the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and the recovery of weapons established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The common intention to kill was inferred from the concerted action of both appellants in stabbing the victim. (Paras 2-3)

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 Rafiq is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are upheld.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Common intention
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Protection money
  • Stabbing
  • Dying declaration
  • Circumstantial evidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 67

Criminal Appeal No.314 of 2002

2006-09-21

V.G. Palshikar, Acg. C.J., Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.

Mrs. Prajakta P. Shinde (for appellants), Smt. V.R. Bhosale (for respondent)

Sadashiv Muttappa Aiwale and Mohan Kumar Hatale

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 to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted for murdering Rafiq by stabbing him when he intervened in a protection money demand

Previous Decisions

Sessions Judge, Sangli convicted the appellants in Sessions Case No.145 of 2000 on 10th January 2002

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the evidence

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued through appointed counsel that the evidence was insufficient Respondent argued that the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence proved the guilt

Ratio Decidendi

The common intention to commit murder can be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused, and the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and recovery of weapons is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 10th January 2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.145 of 2000. The charge against the Appellants is that on 13th March 2000 at about 10.45 a.m. they committed the murder of one Rafiq in furtherance of their common intention.

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sangli on 10th January 2002 in Sessions Case No.145 of 2000. They appealed to the High Court of Bombay, which heard the appeal and dismissed it on 21st September 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34, 504, 506
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds State Government's Reservation in Promotions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Under Article 16(4) of Constitution. Reservation of 10% Higher Posts for Backward Classes in Promotion Quota Valid Despite ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Welfare Associations' Challenge to Property Tax Reassessment in Shanti Nagar. Court holds that reassessment under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is invalid without prior notice and hearing, an...