Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, arose from the conviction of appellants—Amarjeetsingh (brother), Jagtarsingh (father), and Balvindarkaur (mother)—by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 177/2007. They were held guilty of the murder of Paramjeetkaur (daughter/sister) and the attempted murder of her husband, Jarnelsingh, as well as wrongful confinement, all read with common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and other concurrent sentences on 9 February 2012. The case originated from a love marriage between Paramjeetkaur and Jarnelsingh, which the accused family strongly opposed. According to the prosecution, Paramjeetkaur and Jarnelsingh had a love affair and married at a Gurudwara in Nanded on 27 April 2007, after which they lived with Jarnelsingh’s father. The accused had previously threatened to kill the couple if Paramjeetkaur was not sent back. On 27 July 2007, around 5:30 p.m., while the couple was returning on a scooter from a religious function, they were waylaid by the accused at Ganraj Nagar and forcibly taken inside the accused’s first-floor flat. There, accused Amarjeetsingh allegedly stabbed Paramjeetkaur on the abdomen with a khanjar, then stabbed Jarnelsingh on the left chest to kill him. Injured Jarnelsingh managed to escape and inform his father by phone. Police, alerted about commotion, forced open the bolted flat door and found Paramjeetkaur dead on a cot with stab injuries and the two other accused present. The investigation led to seizure of a blood-stained tabbar (weapon), clothes, and a subsequent recovery of the khanjar at the instance of accused Amarjeetsingh. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses, including the injured eyewitness Jarnelsingh, doctors, panch witnesses, and investigating officers. The defence, through cross-examination and Section 313 CrPC statements, claimed that Jarnelsingh had come to their flat demanding Rs. 5 lakhs, and when his father-in-law questioned the demand, Jarnelsingh attacked him with a khanjar; Paramjeetkaur intervened and was accidentally stabbed. On appeal, the appellants’ senior counsel argued that the first informant (Jarnelsingh’s father) had resiled from his FIR in court. The judgment reserved on 5 March 2015 and pronounced on 8 May 2015 does not contain the final decision or detailed reasoning in the provided excerpt. Therefore, the High Court’s ultimate ruling, legal analysis, and ratio decidendi are not available.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (05) 2
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118/2012
Shri R.N. Dhorde, Sr. Adv. instructed by S/Shri V.R. Dhorde & P.G. Patil, Advs. for appellants; Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, APP for respondent State
Amarjeetsingh s/o Jagtarsingh Mohar, Jagtarsingh s/o Makhansingh Mohar, Balvindarkaur w/o Jagtarsingh Mohar
The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Vazirabad, Nanded
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for offences of murder, attempt to murder, and wrongful confinement read with common intention.
Remedy Sought
The appellants seek to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and acquit them of all charges.
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, for the murder of Paramjeetkaur and the attempted murder of her husband Jarnelsingh, as well as for wrongful confinement, and they are challenging the legality and correctness of that verdict.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No.177/2007, by judgment dated 9.2.2012, convicted all three appellants for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34, and 342 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murder charge, five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the attempt to murder, and three months’ simple imprisonment for wrongful confinement, with concurrent running of sentences.
Issues
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence to convict the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the defence version raised during cross-examination and Section 313 CrPC statements was probable and sufficient to rebut the prosecution’s case.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants’ senior counsel argued that the first informant (P.W.1) completely resiled from his FIR in court, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case.
Judgment Excerpts
accused no.1 Amarjeetsingh Mohar gave blow of Khanjar/dagger on abdomen of his sister Paramjeetkaur.
Paramjeetkaur was seen lying dead on the cot in the bedroom of that flat with stab injury to her abdomen.
Procedural History
FIR lodged on 27.7.2007 by P.W.1 Amarjeetsingh Gill; investigation conducted by P.I. Avinash Sonawane and others; chargesheet filed for offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 342/34 IPC; trial held as Sessions Case No.177/2007 before Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded; by judgment dated 9.2.2012, accused convicted and sentenced; appeal No.118/2012 filed before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; arguments heard on 5.3.2015; judgment pronounced on 8.5.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 34, 302, 307, 342
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
