Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder and Causing Disappearance of Evidence Based on Extra-Judicial Confession and Recovery of Dead Body. Extra-judicial confession made to Police Patil and subsequent recovery of dead body pursuant to appellant's statement held sufficient to sustain conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 55
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Tulshidas Shankar Mandwe, was convicted by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for murder and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- for causing disappearance of evidence. The appeal was directed against this conviction. The facts leading to the prosecution were that the appellant and the victim, Gayabai, were residing together away from their respective families. Due to some disputes, the appellant murdered Gayabai by hitting her with stones on the head and chest, and then buried her dead body to conceal the death. After some time, relatives of Gayabai made inquiries about her whereabouts. On 9.3.2003, the appellant made an extra-judicial confession before Madan Ingle, the Police Patil of village Dongarshevali, stating that he had murdered Gayabai and buried her dead body in the field. About nine days thereafter, a report was lodged with the police and the appellant was apprehended. During interrogation, the appellant agreed to show the spot where the dead body was buried, and a memorandum was made. The dead body was exhumed in the presence of an Executive Magistrate. The court considered the evidence and found the extra-judicial confession to be voluntary and credible, and the recovery of the dead body corroborated the confession. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Sections 302, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Extra-judicial confession - The appellant was convicted for murdering Gayabai by hitting her with stones and burying her dead body. The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confession made to Police Patil and recovery of dead body pursuant to appellant's statement. The court held that the extra-judicial confession was voluntary and credible, and the recovery of dead body corroborated the confession. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code based on extra-judicial confession and recovery of dead body is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld.

Law Points

  • Extra-judicial confession
  • corroboration
  • recovery of dead body
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 201 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 144

Criminal Appeal No.381 of 2004

2006-11-28

H.S. Bedi, C.J., R.C. Chavan, J.

Mr. R.M. Daga for appellant, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, A.P.P. for respondent

Tulshidas s/o Shankar Mandwe

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court for murdering Gayabai and burying her dead body.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine.

Issues

Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant is voluntary and credible. Whether the recovery of the dead body pursuant to the appellant's statement corroborates the confession.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the extra-judicial confession was not voluntary and the evidence was insufficient. State argued that the confession was voluntary and corroborated by recovery of dead body.

Ratio Decidendi

Extra-judicial confession made to a Police Patil, if voluntary and credible, can form the basis of conviction, especially when corroborated by recovery of dead body pursuant to the accused's statement.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. On 9.3.2003 the appellant made an extra judicial confession before Madan Ingle, the Police Patil of village Dongarshevali, and stated that he had murdered Gayabai and buried her dead body in the field.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellant on 30.6.2004. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.381 of 2004 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Appeal heard and dismissed on 28.11.2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder and Causing Disappearance of Evidence Based on Extra-Judicial Confession and Recovery of Dead Body. Extra-judicial confession made to Police Patil and subsequent recovery of dead body pursuant to appell...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellants in Robbery Case Under Section 392 IPC. Identification by Witnesses and Recovery of Stolen Property Sufficient to Sustain Conviction.