Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Santosh Arjun Chavan & Others vs State of Maharashtra & Others
with Raju Arjun Chavan & Others vs State of Maharashtra & Others

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-09-16 04:09:54
  • 82
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC without framing a specific charge to that effect? Whether the evidence of interested witnesses, examined in the absence of independent witnesses, was sufficient to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt? Whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence was perverse?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 89

Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2014

2018-10-23

S. S. Shinde, A. S. Gadkari

2018:BHC-AS:29952-DB

Ms. Anita A. Agrawal for Appellants, Ms. S.V. Sonawane APP for State

Raju Arjun Chavan, Santosh Arjun Chavan, Shivaji Arjun Chavan, Ravi Taru Rathod, Dipak Ramhari Chavan

State of Maharashtra, Smt. Bharati Vilas Chavan, Smt. Mathurabai Ramu Chavan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and robbery under Sections 302/149, 396, 397 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal by challenging the trial court's conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

The prosecution alleged that on 27.05.2012, the accused assaulted and robbed Vilas Chavan of Rs.50,000 and caused his death, leading to registration of C.R. No.152/2012.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 396, 397 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC without framing a specific charge to that effect? Whether the evidence of interested witnesses, examined in the absence of independent witnesses, was sufficient to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt? Whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence was perverse?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with 149 IPC without framing a charge to that effect or altering the existing charge, thereby violating their right to a fair trial. Appellants contended that prosecution witnesses PW2 Fulchand and PW5 Baby were close relatives of the deceased and highly interested witnesses, and their presence at the scene was doubtful. Appellants submitted that after the alleged incident, no complaint was lodged regarding the previous day's scuffle, and the alleged motive was not proved. Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses despite a crowd gathering at the spot, and thus the conviction based solely on interested witnesses was unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

Both these Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21st March, 2014, passed by the II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.268 of 2012 thereby convicting accused No.1 – Raju Arjun Chavan, ... The trial Court convicted the Appellants – accused for the offence punishable under Sections 396 and 397 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous life imprisonment... Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants ... submitted that the trial Court erred in convicting the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC without framing charge to that effect... Learned counsel further submits that PW2 Fulchand and PW5 Baby, who were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses, are highly interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased.

Procedural History

FIR C.R. No.152/2012 registered at Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur on 27.05.2012; investigation completed and charge-sheet filed; case committed to Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Case No.268 of 2012; trial held by II Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur; judgment dated 21.03.2014 convicting accused Nos.1-5 under Sections 302/149, 396, 397 IPC; appeals filed as Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2014 by all five accused and Criminal Appeal No.647 of 2016 by accused Nos.2-4; both appeals heard together by this Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 149, 396, 397
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
murder robbery Section 302 Section 149 Section 396 Section 397 Indian Penal Code interested witness charge framing life imprisonment

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs District Revenue Officer to Dispose of UDR Appeal Within Four Months. Writ Petition Seeking Expeditious Disposal of Pending Revenue Appeal Allowed with No Costs. 2026-09-18 01:53:13
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against Accused for Filing False Affidavit and Misleading Court in Criminal Revision. Filing of false affidavit amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1... 2026-09-18 01:53:09
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 Land Acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court Dismisses MBBS Student's Writ Petition Seeking Fourth Attempt in Anatomy...

High Court of Bombay Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Tenancy Orders Under Bombay Tenancy ...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Writ Petitions by Lessees in Land Encr...

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for ...

Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Appeal — Sets Aside NCL...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order Appointing Different Arbitrator Under Section 11 o...

Lost Your Password?