Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Two Accused for Murder Under Section 302 IPC — Life Imprisonment Maintained Based on Consistent Eyewitness Testimony and Medical Evidence. Common Intention Established Under Section 34 IPC as Both Accused Participated in Assault with Shared Intent.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 18
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Dattu Rama Theurkar and Deepak Dattu Theurkar, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. The case arose from an incident on 25th April 1993 at about 8:00 p.m. in village Khopodi, Taluka Daund, District Pune. The prosecution case was that the appellants, along with a third accused (who was acquitted), assaulted the deceased, Suresh Dattu Theurkar, and another person, Dattu Rama Theurkar (the father of the deceased), with sticks and a knife. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the injured complainant (PW1), who was an eyewitness. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the testimony of PW1 and other corroborating evidence. The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the evidence was unreliable and that there was no common intention. The High Court, after analyzing the evidence, found that the testimony of PW1 was consistent and credible, and that the medical evidence supported the prosecution case. The court held that the appellants acted with common intention to cause the death of the deceased. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Sections 302, 34, 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence - The appellants were convicted for murder of one person and causing hurt to another. The court examined the credibility of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and the presence of common intention. Held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-45).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC 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 sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.

Law Points

  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Section 323 IPC
  • Common Intention
  • Eyewitness Testimony
  • Medical Evidence
  • Circumstantial Evidence
  • Motive
  • Last Seen Theory
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 78

Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2000

2017-12-15

S.C. Dharmadhikari, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre

Mr. Swapnil Ovalekar (for Appellants), Mrs. M.H. Mhatre (APP for Respondent)

Dattu Rama Theurkar and Deepak Dattu Theurkar

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 hurt.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati.

Previous Decisions

The trial court convicted the appellants on 30th December 1999 in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable. Whether the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence of eyewitnesses was unreliable and contradictory. Appellants argued that there was no common intention to commit murder. Respondent argued that the testimony of the injured eyewitness was credible and corroborated by medical evidence. Respondent argued that the appellants acted with common intention.

Ratio Decidendi

The testimony of an injured eyewitness, when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. Common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the case.

Judgment Excerpts

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Baramati in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993 (State of Maharashtra vs. Dattu Rama Theurkar & Ors.), dated 30th December, 1999, the two Appellants i.e. original accused No.1 and 2, have preferred the present Appeal challenging their conviction under section 302, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellants on 30th December 1999. The appellants filed the present appeal in the High Court. The appeal was reserved for judgment on 16th November 2017 and pronounced on 15th December 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34, 323
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Bridegroom for Culpable Homicide in Wedding Feast Stabbing. Sudden Quarrel Over Kadhi Serving Reduces Murder Charge to Section 304 Part I IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Two Accused for Murder Under Section 302 IPC — Life Imprisonment Maintained Based on Consistent Eyewitness Testimony and Medical Evidence. Common Intention Established Under Section 34 IPC as Both Accused Par...