Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellants for Murder and Attempt to Murder Based on Circumstantial Evidence and Motive. The court found that the chain of circumstances, including motive and last seen evidence, was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 42
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two criminal appeals and a reference arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, dated 12 August 1993. The appellants, Pandurang Babu Konkeri, Laxman Babu Konkeri, Bhima Sidda Mang (in Criminal Appeal No.472 of 1993) and Maruti Rayappa Dhangar (in Criminal Appeal No.502 of 1993), were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, with default sentences, for the murder of Birappa, and rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- each for attempting to murder Rama. The trial court made a reference under Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for passing sentence against original accused No.1 (Maruti Rayappa Dhangar) as he was not sentenced. The facts, as per the prosecution, are that on 26 September 1988, P.W.4 Head Constable Parashu Devudkar was informed by the Deputy Sarpanch and Nagu Konkeri about a likelihood of an untoward incident. He proceeded to village Jarali and noticed accused Nos.1 and 2 coming by road, appearing frightened. They were taken into custody. He then went to the field of Rayappa and found two persons with hands and legs tied. One person, Rama (P.W.1), was injured, and another, Birappa, was dead. The injured Rama was untied and sent to the hospital. The next day, the scene of incident was pointed out. P.W.7 P.S.I. Shivprasad Galimath proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured after being informed by the Medical Officer that he was fit to give a statement. The appeals challenge the conviction and sentence. The court, after considering the evidence, upheld the conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen evidence, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Sections 302, 307, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Circumstantial Evidence - Appellants convicted for murder of Birappa and attempt to murder Rama based on motive, last seen evidence, and recovery of weapons - Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants - Conviction upheld (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and motive.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeals are dismissed and the conviction and sentence are upheld. The reference under Section 318 CrPC is disposed of accordingly.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • motive
  • last seen theory
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 307 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Section 318 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (03) 66

Criminal Appeal No.472 of 1993, Criminal Appeal No.502 of 1993, Reference No.3 of 1993

2014-03-26

P.V. Hardas, A.S. Gadkari

Mrs. Varsha Palav for the Appellant, Dr. F.R. Shaikh, Addl. P.P. for the State

Pandurang Babu Konkeri, Laxman Babu Konkeri, Bhima Sidda Mang, Maruti Rayappa Dhangar

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction for murder and attempt to murder, and a reference for sentencing.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 12 August 1993 for murder and attempt to murder.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur convicted the appellants on 12 August 1993.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. State argued that the circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen, was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory, is sustainable if the chain of circumstances is complete and points to the guilt of the accused.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellants who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code... Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of these Appeals may briefly be stated thus...

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 12 August 1993. They filed appeals before the Bombay High Court. The trial court also made a reference under Section 318 CrPC for sentencing accused No.1. The appeals and reference were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307, 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 318
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit for Clubbing Properties in Different Jurisdictions. Section 17 CPC Does Not Permit a Single Suit for Separate Immovable Properties Situated in Different States.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Proof of Homicidal Death and Unreliable Eyewitness. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.