Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, was hearing three connected criminal appeals arising from a murder case. The prosecution case stemmed from an old enmity between the family of the informant, Vaishali Kukadey, and the accused, Amol and Mahendra Londhe, along with others. On 26-3-2009, the accused allegedly entered the informant's house armed with wooden logs and swords, broke household items, and assaulted the informant's husband, Pramod Kukadey, dragging him outside and inflicting fatal injuries. The first information report was lodged at Kotwali Police Station, Nagpur, leading to registration of Crime No. 40 of 2009 under sections 452, 302, 504, 427, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. After investigation, the accused were tried in Sessions Trial No. 309 of 2009. The trial court, by its judgment dated 13-5-2010, convicted Amol and Mahendra Londhe under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting the other accused. Aggrieved, the convicts filed Criminal Appeals No. 396 and 397 of 2010, and the informant filed Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2010 against the acquittal. Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution case was riddled with inconsistencies, that there was a delay in recording witness statements and lodging the FIR, and that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony. They cited several Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The State argued that the eyewitnesses' testimony was consistent, and minor contradictions did not vitiate the prosecution case. The full text of the court's analysis and final decision is not available in the provided excerpt, and therefore the ultimate outcome of the appeals and the ratio decidendi cannot be extracted from the given material.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of Amol and Mahendra Londhe under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable on the evidence, and whether the acquittal of other accused was justified.
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 136
Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.397 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.555 of 2010
B.R. Gavai, A.S. Chandurkar
R. K. Tiwari, Bharti Dangre
Amol S/o Puroshottam Londhe, Mahendra S/o Puroshottam Londhe, Smt. Vaishali Wd/o Pramod Kukadey
The State of Maharashtra, Purshottam S/o Ganpat Londhe, Mahendra S/o Purshottam Londhe, Amol S/o Purshottam Londhe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for murder and appeal against acquittal of other accused.
Remedy Sought
Appellants Amol and Mahendra Londhe sought acquittal; appellant Vaishali Kukadey sought conviction of acquitted accused.
Filing Reason
Dispute arising from old enmity led to a violent assault on 26-3-2009, resulting in the death of Pramod Kukadey.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Trial No.309/2009 decided on 13-5-2010 by Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted accused 1 and 2 under Section 302/34 IPC and acquitted accused 3-5.
Issues
Reliability of eyewitness testimony in light of inconsistencies.
Effect of delay in lodging FIR and recording witness statements.
Whether medical evidence corroborated ocular evidence.
Whether acquittal of co-accused was proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that prosecution evidence was inconsistent, witnesses contradicted each other, and there was a delay of three days in recording statements, which was fatal to the prosecution. Medical evidence was at variance with ocular testimony, and the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay.
State argued that the testimony of key eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-8) was consistent, minor variations did not discredit them, ocular evidence matched medical evidence, and the conviction was well-founded.
Judgment Excerpts
The accused Nos.1 to 4 on account of old enmity broke the old television of Crown Company belonging to the complainant.
The husband of the complainant who was on the first floor came down. The accused Nos.1 to 4 dragged the deceased Pramod Kukadey out of the house and took him in front of the house on the road and assaulted with sword and wooden logs on his neck and other part of body.
the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants accused No.1 Mahendra S/o Purshottam Londhe and accused No.2 Amol S/o Purshottam Londhe for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand) each
Procedural History
FIR No.40/2009 was registered at Kotwali Police Station on 26-3-2009 under sections 452,302,504,427,323 r/w 34 IPC and section 135 Bombay Police Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court where charges were framed. Trial concluded with judgment dated 13-5-2010: accused 1 and 2 convicted under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; accused 3-5 acquitted. Appeals were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 452, 302, 504, 427, 323, 34
- Bombay Police Act: 135
