SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
A. P. LAVANDE & A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
Rajkumar s/o. Hansraj Verma
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2009
Decided on : 12th February, 2013

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.M. DAGA, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.S. NAYAK, APP for the respondent.

Headnote:[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - Conviction for murder.

       Where entire evidence on record clearly proved that accused committed offence of murder therefore conviction of accused just and proper.

       

JUDGMENT

A. P. LAVANDE, J. :- By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused"), takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 6th, Nagpur, in Session Trial No. 306/2008, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Out of fine amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been ordered to pay to P.W.2 Divyani as compensation.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as under:

On 19.5.2008, P.W.1 Dilip Paigwar, the informant, lodged report at Police Station, M.I.D.C. inter alia alleging that he was a retired Police Sub Inspector and was residing at Shubham Nagar, Hingna Road, Nagpur. The house of one Arun Khandar was near his house and the accused was residing as a tenant in the house of Arun Khandar. The accused had worked as a driver of Arun Khandar for some time. When the accused was serving under him, the accused told him that there were illicit relations between his wife Rani and Arun Khandar and he had seen them indulging in sexual intercourse in the house of Arun Khandar in the absence of Arun's wife. Accused told him that it would not be appropriate to disclose this fact. On this count, there were quarrels between the accused and his wife Rani.

3. On 18.5.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. the accused came to the shop of Dilip Paigwar and Dilip Paigwar inquired from the accused as to what had happened since the accused seemed to be in a bad mood. The accused replied that his wife was misbehaving and as such he was thinking of committing suicide. Thereafter, the accused left the shop. On 19.5.2008 at about 5.30 a.m. he learnt that three persons i.e. two women and one man were lying dead in the house of Arun Khandar, so he went to the house of Arun Khandar and saw that Arun Khandar, his wife Versha Khandar and Rani, the wife of accused were lying dead in the pool of blood on the roof of the house of Arun Khandar. He also saw that one sledge hammer, stone-slab (dagadi pata) and one stick were lying near them. It was alleged that the accused suspecting illicit relation of his wife with Arun Khandar, on the night between 18th and 19th May, 2008 assaulted Arun Khandar, Varsha Khandar and Rani Verma with iron hammer and stone (pata) and caused severe injuries to them and committed their murder. On the basis of the said report, the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, M.I.D.C. registered an offence bearing Crime No. 84/2008 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and handed over the investigation to Police Inspector- Ramlakhan Yadao, who investigated the crime. On 21.5.2008, A.S.I., Mishra arrested the accused. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to the Police Inspector Sayyed Iqbal, who conducted further investigation and filed charge sheet. The offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur.

4. In Session Trial No. 306/2008, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, out of whom four witnesses including the first informant P.W.1 Dilip Paigwar, turned hostile. The prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. Further his defence is that in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. he along with his son had gone to Chhattisgad and fell ill and thereafter the police arrested him outside Durg Railway Station. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the offence of murder was clearly made out against the accused and consequently convicted and sentenced him as above.

6. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution had proved that the death of



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top