Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pradeep @ Balu Shivram Barge, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, for the murder of Dilip Jadhav under Section 302 IPC and for voluntarily causing hurt to PW1 Namdeo Jadhav under Section 323 IPC. The incident occurred on 18 April 2007 at about 7:45 pm when the appellant stabbed the deceased twice in the chest with a knife following a quarrel between the deceased's son Karan and the appellant's son. PW1, the deceased's brother, witnessed the incident and sustained an injury to his finger while trying to intervene. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The appellant was arrested the next day and a blood-stained knife was recovered at his instance. The trial court relied on the testimony of eye-witnesses PW1 and PW9 (Karan), medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon to convict the appellant. In appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction arguing that the eye-witnesses were interested and their testimony was inconsistent. The High Court examined the evidence and found that PW1 and PW9 gave consistent accounts of the incident, which was corroborated by the medical evidence showing two stab wounds on the deceased's chest. The recovery of the knife at the appellant's instance further supported the prosecution case. The court held that the minor discrepancies in the testimony did not affect the credibility of the witnesses. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on eye-witness testimony - The appellant was convicted for murder and voluntarily causing hurt. The court examined the credibility of eye-witnesses PW1 and PW9, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon. Held that the testimony of PW1 and PW9 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, and the recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant further strengthened the prosecution case. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld. (Paras 1-15)
B) Criminal Law - Voluntarily Causing Hurt - Section 323 IPC - Injury to witness - The appellant also caused hurt to PW1 when he intervened. The injury certificate of PW1 corroborated his testimony. Held that the conviction under Section 323 IPC was also sustainable. (Paras 2, 15)
C) Evidence Law - Recovery of Weapon - Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The knife used in the offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant from a hidden place. The recovery panchanama was proved by PW5. Held that the recovery is a relevant piece of evidence linking the appellant to the crime. (Paras 3, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Murder
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Eye-witness testimony
- Medical evidence
- Recovery of weapon
- Motive
- Sentence
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 89
Criminal Appeal No. 1095 of 2013
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the Appellant, Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State
Pradeep @ Balu Shivram Barge
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and voluntarily causing hurt.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by the trial court and appealed against the judgment.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, convicted the appellant on 3rd December 2008 in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2008.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence.
Whether the conviction under Section 323 IPC is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the eye-witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony was inconsistent and unreliable.
Prosecution argued that the testimony of PW1 and PW9 was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of eye-witnesses PW1 and PW9 is credible and consistent, corroborated by medical evidence showing two stab wounds on the deceased's chest. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant further links him to the crime. Minor discrepancies in testimony do not affect the credibility of witnesses. Hence, the conviction under Sections 302 and 323 IPC is sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
In this appeal an exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 3rd December 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.62 of 2008 whereby Appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months on the first count and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for 1 month on the second count.
Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows; PW1 Namdeo Jadhav is the younger brother of deceased Dilip. They were residing adjacent to each other. Dilip had one son by name Karan aged about 13 to 14 years. Two to Four days prior to the date of incident there was some quarrel between Karan and son of Appellant. On the date of incident i.e. 18/04/2007 at about 7.45 pm when Karan had gone to the shop of Shri Wagh, Appellant abused him. Hence PW9 Karan came to the house crying. He informed about the same to his father and uncle. Hence both of them decided to go to the house of Appellant's brother to inform him about it. While they were proceeding on the way, Appellant came from opposite direction. Dilip asked the Appellant as to why he has abused his son Karan. Thereupon Appellant started stabbing the deceased with knife on his chest. He inflicted two blows of knife on his chest. When PW1 Namdeo tried to obstruct him by holding his hand, he also sustained injury to middle finger of his right hand. Appellant gave the jerk and ran away. Injured Dilip was then taken to the Civil Hospital, where he was declared dead.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara on 3rd December 2008 in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2008. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, which reserved judgment on 6th September 2017 and pronounced on 20th September 2017, dismissing the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 323
