Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
R.K. DESHPANDE, M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Sunil S/o. Manoharrao Pandhare - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.301 OF 2016
Decided On : 19-12-2017
Conviction - Murder - Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a contractor. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with another individual, demanded profit from the contract work and subsequently stabbed the deceased, leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of incriminating evidence against the appellant and the doubtful nature of the recovery of the weapon and the Chemical Analyser's report. As a result, the appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of the recovery of the weapon, and the Chemical Analyser's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in serious offences, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence and the importance of corroborative evidence in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
M.G. Giratkar, J.
1. By this appeal, appellant has assailed the Judgment of conviction, in Sessions Case No.89 of 2014, dated 11.7.2016, by Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is as under:
The deceased was a Contractor. He was doing contract work with Public Works Department. Accused was partner of the deceased. Accused was demanding profit of contract work. One Dilip Deshmukh was also partner. Dilip Deshmukh and accused beat the deceased and demanded Rs.40,000/-. It is alleged in the report that deceased had lodged report in the Police Station on 16.8.2014 stating that the deceased had gone to bring his sons Ganesh and Gaurav from the School. At about 12.30 p.m., he went towards school. Accused stabbed the deceased by knife and ran away. One person informed the wife of deceased/complainant. She went to the spot of incident. Thereafter, she lodged the report. Investigating Officer P.I. Subhash Murlidhar Dhawale (PW-10) went to the spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama, recorded statements of witnesses, sent dead body for post mortem, arrested accused and recovered weapon of crime as per the confessional statement of accused. He sent seized property to Chemical Analyser, Nagpur. After complete investigation, he filed charge sheet before the Court.
3. Charge was framed at Exh.7. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial and false implication.
4. The trial Court has examined the following witnesses :
(a) Malla Reddy Vitha Reddy Yemnurwar (PW-1) (Exh.12).
(b) Shankar Patruji Yerme (PW-2) (Exh.14).
(c) Irfankhan Chandkhan Pathan (PW-3) (Exh.16).
(d) Sanjay Bhaskarrao Channe (PW-4) (Exh.18).
(e) Atul Kawduji Atram (PW-5) (Exh.20).
(f) Akshay Sanjay Karpe (PW-6) (Exh.21).
(g) Dr.Manish Ashok Badnaware (PW-7) (Exh.22).
(h) Mahesh Shankar Lingampalliwar (PW-8) (Exh.28).
(i) Dilip Vitthalrao Deshmukh (PW-9) (Exh.31).
(j) Subhash Murlidhar Dhawale (PW-10) (Exh.32).
(k) Jaimala Govind Gite (PW-11)( Exh.64).
(l) Ravi Ratnaiyya Nelkudri (PW-12) (Exh.66).
5. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. He has denied material incriminating evidence against him. After hearing prosecution and defence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant, as aforesaid.
6. Heard Mr. R.M. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has pointed out evidence on record and submitted that there is no evidence to show that accused committed murder of deceased Govind Prabhakar Gite by means of knife. Witnesses have not stated anything against the appellant. Learned Counsel has submitted that the trial Court has wrongly relied on the evidence of Investigating Officer Subhash Dhawale (PW-10) and wrongly convicted the appellant.
7. Heard Mrs. S.S. Jachak, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. She has pointed out evidence of Jaimala Govind Gite (PW-11) and submitted that there was enmity between the appellant and deceased. Motive is proved. Learned A.P.P. Has pointed out Chemical Analyser's report. It is submitted that knife and clothes of deceased were stained with blood of blood group 'A'. Blood group of deceased was 'A'. Hence, he is rightly convicted by the trial Court.
8. There is no dispute that deceased died homicidal death. Evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Manish Ashok Badnaware (PW-7) shows that he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Govind Gite and found sixteen injuries. As per his opinion, cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to haemorrhagic shock due to injuries to vital organs i.e. left lung and heart due to multiple stab wound. Accordingly, he issued Post Mortem report (Exh.25). This evidence shows that deceased died homicidal death.
9. Prosecut
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
