Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, arising from the conviction of three appellants by the trial court for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, originally accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for six months for causing hurt, with sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution case, based on the first information report lodged by Krushnaji (PW1), was that on 6.7.2001 a dispute occurred over a calf entering the thrashing floor of uncle Bandu (accused No.4). Accused No.1 Baban, armed with an axe, and accused Nos.2 Navnath and 4 Bandu, armed with sticks, attacked Vithoba, the father of PW1, at the thrashing floor. Accused No.1 struck Vithoba on the head with the blunt side of the axe, while the other two hit him with sticks. Vithoba died from the head injury. The prosecution also alleged that the accused assaulted PW1 Krushnaji, PW5 Prakash, and Sindhubai. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 and 324/34 IPC, while acquitting them of other charges. In appeal, the appellants contended that the evidence of PW9 Swaroopchand, an alleged eyewitness, was unreliable because his statement was recorded 15 days after the incident. The High Court noted that the Investigating Officer was not cross-examined on this delay. The provided text of the oral judgment ends before the court's final decision is stated, thus the outcome of the appeal is not known from the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction - Reliability of Ocular Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 - The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the evidence of PW9 Swaroopchand, recorded 15 days after the incident, was unreliable - The court noted that the Investigating Officer was not cross-examined on the delay in recording the statement - The court's final view on this contention is not contained in the provided text (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified.
Law Points
- common intention
- murder
- hurt
- ocular evidence
- delayed recording of statement
- appeal against conviction
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 9
Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2004
S.B. Deshmukh, S.P. Kukday
V.G. Gangapurwala (for appellants), P.M. Shinde (APP for respondent)
Baban Bandu Patil, Navnath Bandu Patil, Bandu Rambhau Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing hurt
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the trial court's order of conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC and acquitted them of other charges including Sections 147, 148, 307, 149 IPC
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 324 read with 34 IPC was sustainable on the basis of the ocular evidence
Whether the testimony of PW9 Swaroopchand, recorded 15 days after the incident, was reliable
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants’ counsel argued that the evidence of PW9 Swaroopchand should be rejected because his statement was recorded after 15 days of the incident and no question regarding the delay was put to the Investigating Officer
Judgment Excerpts
According to him, he was, at the relevant time, returning to his house. There was a quarrel and accused No.1 Baban armed with an axe, accused Nos.2 and 4 armed with sticks were present at the scene of incident.
He has admitted in his cross examination that deceased was his brother in law by distant relation. In the cross examination he states that after the incident, for about 2-3 weeks, he was at village Kundane itself. He also admits in the cross examination that his statement was recorded after 15 days of the incident.
We have referred to the cross examination of Investigating Officer. There is no question put to the Investigating Officer regarding delayed recording of statement of PW 9 Swaroop
Procedural History
On 6.7.2001 an incident occurred at Kundane village leading to the death of Vithoba and injuries to others. FIR was lodged by Krushnaji at Dhule Police Station on 7.7.2001 at 00.30 hrs. Investigation was conducted, charge sheet filed, and the case committed to the Court of Sessions. Trial held before II Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.93 of 2001. On conclusion of trial, appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively, while acquitted of other offences. Present appeal filed before High Court against conviction.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 149, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
