Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder and Causing Disappearance of Evidence in Land Dispute Case. Circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of incriminating articles held sufficient to convict under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 177
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Dnyaneshwar Tauba Gonde, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 188/2013 for the murder of a villager (deceased) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The incident occurred on 22nd February 2013. The prosecution case was that the deceased was threatened by some villagers to vacate gairan land. The appellant, along with others, was suspected. The deceased's son, Jitendra, lodged a complaint against three persons initially, but later the appellant was arrested. The case was based on circumstantial evidence: motive (land dispute), last seen evidence (the deceased was last seen with the appellant), extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to witnesses, and recovery of burnt bones and clothes from the appellant's field. The trial court convicted the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the appellant. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC, confirming the life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - The appellant was convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of incriminating articles - The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant - (Paras 1-30)

B) Criminal Law - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - The appellant was also convicted for causing disappearance of evidence by burning the dead body - The court held that the recovery of burnt bones and clothes from the appellant's field established the offence - (Paras 1-30)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are upheld.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Causing disappearance of evidence
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Motive
  • Last seen theory
  • Extra-judicial confession
  • Recovery of incriminating articles
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 201 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 28

Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2015 with Criminal Application No. 839 of 2015

2015-07-30

S.S. Shinde, A.I.S. Cheema

Mr. S.S. Jadhavar (for Appellant), Mr. V.D. Godbharale (APP for Respondent/State)

Dnyaneshwar Tauba Gonde

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 causing disappearance of evidence.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 188/2013.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000) and Section 201 IPC (seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000).

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable. Whether the conviction under Section 201 IPC is sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient and circumstantial. State argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The chain of circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of incriminating articles was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant, warranting conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 188/2013, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P. Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/... The brief facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under...

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 15.01.2015 in Sessions Case No. 188/2013. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and dismissed on 30.07.2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Parole to Life Convict Despite Police Objection Based on Past Good Conduct. The court held that parole is a statutory right and rejection based on vague apprehension of absconding without material is unsustainable under Rule ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition to Quash Criminal Proceedings in Dowry Harassment Case Due to Non-Prosecution. Petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 d...