Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder and Bombay Police Act Offence — Life Imprisonment Confirmed for Stabbing Death in Public Toilet. Circumstantial evidence including last seen and recovery of bloodstained clothes held sufficient to prove guilt under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 80
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Kiran Ashok Jadhav, was convicted by the 10th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.427 of 2006 for the murder of an unknown person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for an offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.15,000 for murder, and one year rigorous imprisonment for the Bombay Police Act offence, with both sentences to run concurrently. The appellant challenged this conviction in the Bombay High Court. The facts of the case are that on 23 February 2006, at about 11:30 p.m., PSI Atmaram Davare received a telephonic message from Gangaram Panchal that an injured person was lying in a toilet near Teen Dongri. Upon reaching the spot, the police found the deceased in a pool of blood and admitted him to Cooper Hospital, where he was declared dead. The statement of Gangaram Panchal was recorded as the First Information Report (FIR), leading to the registration of CR No. 119 of 2006. The police conducted a spot panchanama and seized the deceased's bloodstained clothes. The appellant was arrested on 25 February 2006, and his bloodstained clothes were also seized. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence and recovery of bloodstained clothes. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentences.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Appellant convicted for stabbing deceased in a public toilet - Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent evidence of last seen, recovery of bloodstained clothes, and motive - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Bombay Police Act Section 135
  • Life Imprisonment
  • Concurrent Sentences
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (03) 70

Criminal Appeal No.1143 of 2006

2014-03-10

P.V. Hardas, A.S. Gadkari

Mr. Kartik Garg i/b Mr. S.V. Marwadi for the Appellant, Mr. H.J. Dedhia, Addl. P.P. for the Respondent

Kiran Ashok Jadhav

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 offence under Bombay Police Act

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to quash the conviction and sentence

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the correctness of the judgment and order dated 13 October 2006 passed by the 10th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.427 of 2006

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable Whether the conviction under Section 135 Bombay Police Act is sustainable

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt Respondent argued that the prosecution proved its case through circumstantial evidence including last seen and recovery of bloodstained clothes

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence and recovery of bloodstained clothes, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant, original accused No.1, has questioned the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 13 October 2006 passed by the 10th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.427 of 2006 thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the 10th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai on 13 October 2006 in Sessions Case No.427 of 2006. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, which heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 10 March 2014.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
  • Bombay Police Act, 1951: 135
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in Wife Murder Case Due to Lack of Reliable Circumstantial Evidence. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for throttling set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder and Bombay Police Act Offence — Life Imprisonment Confirmed for Stabbing Death in Public Toilet. Circumstantial evidence including last seen and recovery of bloodstained clothes held sufficient to pro...