Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Four Appellants for Murder and Kidnapping in Gang-Related Killing. Life imprisonment confirmed for murder under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and kidnapping under Section 364 read with 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Appellants, Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod, Diljit Babusingh Labhana, Raina Asaraf Khan, and Bhalchandra Haridas Mahale, were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No.90/2013 for the murder of one person and kidnapping. They were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 364 read with 34 IPC, along with fines. The Appellants challenged the judgment and order dated 8.8.2023 before the Bombay High Court. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, motive, and recovery of weapons. The prosecution examined witnesses who testified to the Appellants' involvement. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the Appellants. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC - The Appellants were convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, motive, and recovery of weapons - The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the Appellants - The appeal was dismissed (Paras 1-49).

B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 364 read with 34 IPC - The Appellants were also convicted for kidnapping the deceased - The court found that the evidence of witnesses and circumstances established the kidnapping - The conviction was upheld (Paras 1-49).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the Appellants under Sections 302 and 364 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellants under Sections 302 and 364 read with 34 IPC are upheld.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • last seen theory
  • motive
  • common intention
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 364 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 85

Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2023 with Interim Application No.4357 of 2023

2026-06-29

Sarang V. Kotwal, Ashish S. Chavan

Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry a/w. Anush Shetty for the Appellants, Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent-State, Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar a/w. Harshwardhan Pawar, Yash Saxena, Abhishek Arote, Padmasinh Patil for the Intervenor in IA/4357/2023

Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod, Diljit Babusingh Labhana, Raina Asaraf Khan, Bhalchandra Haridas Mahale

The State of Maharashtra, Rajesh Vishwakarma, Sunny Dhirmalani

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and kidnapping.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and kidnapping.

Previous Decisions

The trial court convicted the Appellants on 8.8.2023 in Sessions Case No.90/2013.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is sustainable? Whether the conviction under Section 364 read with 34 IPC is sustainable?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and circumstantial. Prosecution argued that the chain of circumstances was complete.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory, motive, and recovery of weapons, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the Appellants, and therefore the conviction was sustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 8.8.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No.90/2013. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellants were convicted and sentenced as under :

Procedural History

The Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan on 8.8.2023 in Sessions Case No.90/2013. They appealed to the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal on 29.6.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 364, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Police Officer in Private Complaint for Assault — Lack of Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Renders Prosecution Invalid. Proceedings under Sections 326, 504, 506(II) and 34 IPC quashed as mandato...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Husband in Dowry Harassment and Abetment of Suicide Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Cruelty and Instigation. Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove willful conduct or direct act o...