Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
R.K. DESHPANDE, M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
Ananta Mahadeo Motghare – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2017
Decided On : 16-11-2017
For the Appellant :Mr.A.M.Jaltare, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.V.P.Gangane, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and the medical officer's opinion to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal principles related to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the circumstantial evidence, the guidelines for convicting based on circumstantial evidence, and the interpretation of the legal provisions. The court relied on the evidence of witnesses, the medical officer's opinion, and the chemical analyser reports to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was tried for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing Nanaji Raghoji Dhok. The prosecution's case revolved around the events leading to the discovery of the deceased's body and the circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and the medical officer's opinion. The court rejected the appellant's defense of total denial and acquitted, emphasizing the reliability of the witnesses' evidence and the conclusive nature of the circumstantial evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the interpretation of the legal provisions related to murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and the medical officer's opinion to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the conclusive nature of the circumstantial evidence and the corroboration provided by the chemical analyser reports.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
M.G. Giratkar, J.
1. Appellant Ananta Mahadeo Motghare was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Nanaji Raghoji Dhok. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction in Sessions Trial No.26 of 2014, dt.20.11.2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : Deceased Nanaji Dhok was residing in Indira Nagar, Triveni Chowk, Chandapur. He had two daughters and two sons. All they were married and residing separately with their families. Appellant was foster soninlaw of the deceased. Appellant and deceased were doing business of selling vegetables. Appellant used to give money to deceased. Some of the money was outstanding against deceased.
3. In the night of incident i.e. on 23.11.2013, complainant Sadanand Nagpure/neighbour was sleeping in his house in the night of 24.11.2013. At about 1.00 a.m., he woke up for urinal. He heard sound from the house of Nanaji Dhok as “Mangala Vachav, Mangala Vachav” (“Mangala save, Mangala save”). Therefore, he woke up his wife Mangala. They went in front of house of Nanaji Dhok. But, they did not dare to enter in the house of Nanaji. Therefore, he woke up Raju Indurwar, Suresh Chamate, Raju Lengure, Ankush Saosagade and Vijay Baddalwar by giving a call. All they went near the front door of house of deceased. He gave a call to deceased to open the door. At that time, they heard sound of beating. Thereafter, voice of Nanaji was closed.
4. Complainant suspected that there might be thief in the house. Therefore, he pushed the door. Door was closed from inside. He latched the door from outside. He requested Ankush Saosagade to inform Police Station, Ram Nagar. Ankush informed Police Station, Ramnagar. Within a short time, police jeep came to the house of Nanaji Dhok.
5. As soon as Police vehicle reached there, inner light of the house was put off. Police tried to open the door. But nobody was giving response from inner side. Police broke upon the door and put on the light. Then they saw dead body of Nanaji Dhok was lying near the cot. He had bleeding injury on head. Police searched the room. They saw the accused hiding in one corner behind the drum. Police took the appellant into their custody. Sadanand Nagpure and others identified the appellant because appellant was always visiting the house of deceased. Police asked the name of appellant. Then he told his name as Ananta Motghare resident of Chandrapur. One axe stained with blood was lying in the house.
6. Complainant asked appellant as to why he killed Nanaji. Then he replied that there was money transaction and therefore, he killed deceased.
7. Sadanand Nagpure lodged report in the Police Station (Exh.12). Crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. API Shivaji Ramrao Bhandawalkar (PW6) investigated the crime and filed charge sheet before the Court. PSI Ujwala Bhimrao Wakpanjar (PW8) prepared Spot panchanama (Exh.16) in presence of panchas, seized axe, blood stained soil and plain soil as per Seizure panchanama (Exh.15), prepared Inquest panchanana of dead body (Exh.18). Police Inspector Khanderao Dinaji Pithalewad (PW10) recorded statements of witnesses and filed Charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur. Same was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
8. Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant at Exh.5. Same was read over and explained to the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses. Sadanand Kisan Nagpure (PW1) has stated in his evidence that in between the night of 23rd and 24th at about 1.00 a.m., he woke up for u
