Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a violent incident on 19.1.2011 in Timki Mochipura, Nagpur, where Dinesh Shendekar was killed and his brother Deva and another person, Amol Kumbhalkar, were injured. The accused and the victims were neighbours. A prior money dispute between the deceased’s brother and one of the accused served as the motive. On the night of the incident, the accused persons, armed with swords, approached the informant’s house, broke a window, and declared they had killed his brother. The informant rushed to Rajgire Lane and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with multiple sword injuries. Amol Kumbhalkar, who was also present and injured, informed him that the accused had assaulted the deceased and also attacked him when he intervened. An FIR was lodged, leading to investigation. The police conducted spot and inquest panchanamas, seized articles, and arrested the accused. Medical examination confirmed the nature of injuries. Weapons were allegedly recovered based on disclosure statements of accused Santosh and an acquitted accused, Jitendra. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No.219/2011, convicted the accused under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to varying terms, including life imprisonment. Aggrieved, the accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos.80/2014 and 110/2014 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. In appeal, the appellants contended that the trial court’s conviction rested on unreliable circumstantial evidence. They highlighted that the two purported eyewitnesses were disbelieved by the trial court itself, and their statements were recorded belatedly without explanation. The recovery of weapons was challenged on the ground that the panch witness was the brother-in-law of the informant and independent witnesses were not used. Further, the weapons were recovered on 21.1.2011 but not forwarded to the medical officer until 18.3.2011 and to the Chemical Analyzer only on 21.3.2011, with no explanation for the delay or safe custody. The clothes of the accused were seized days after their arrest and sent for analysis belatedly. The appellants argued that the chain of custody was broken, and the integrity of the material objects was not guaranteed. They also claimed that the FIR was fabricated and the investigating officer failed to register the offence despite receiving information of a cognizable offence. Relying on various Supreme Court decisions, they submitted that the prosecution failed to establish an unerring chain of circumstances pointing to guilt. The respondent’s arguments are not included in the provided excerpt. The court’s analysis and final decision are not available in the text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court are liable to be set aside
