Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, B.U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
Samadhan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2014
Decided On : 06-01-2021
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Raju Misal and causing hurt to Gautam Misal. The prosecution's case was based on the testimonies of three eyewitnesses, Gautam Misal, Sandeep Misal, and Rahul Misal, who were nephews of the deceased. The appellant's defense was that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute between the deceased and his brother. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapon and the postmortem report. The court also rejected the appellant's defense, finding it improbable. The court held that the appellant's act of killing the deceased by slashing his neck with a knife fell squarely under Section 300 of the IPC and not under Section 304. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Raju Misal and causing hurt to Gautam Misal. The prosecution's case was based on the testimonies of three eyewitnesses, Gautam Misal, Sandeep Misal, and Rahul Misal, who were nephews of the deceased. The appellant's defense was that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute between the deceased and his brother.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and found that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapon and the postmortem report. The court also rejected the appellant's defense, finding it improbable. The court held that the appellant's act of killing the deceased by slashing his neck with a knife fell squarely under Section 300 of the IPC and not under Section 304.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were reliable and consistent? 2. Whether the appellant's defense was credible? 3. Whether the appellant's act fell under Section 300 or Section 304 of the IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were reliable and consistent because they were corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapon and the postmortem report. 2. The court rejected the appellant's defense because it was improbable and not supported by any evidence. 3. The court held that the appellant's act fell under Section 300 of the IPC because it was an intentional and premeditated killing.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
JUDGMENT :
B.U. DEBADWAR, J.
1. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 10-03-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge–2, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 380 of 2009, whereby convicted the appellant under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default in payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand Only), in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of one year, respectively.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
(b) Mandabai w/o Bhagwan Misal (PW1), Gautam s/o Bhagwan Misal (PW4), Sandeep s/o Bhagwan Misal (PW5) and Rahul s/o Bhagwan Misal (PW6) are the wife and sons of Bhagwan Shyamrao Misal, respectively.
(c) The appellant Samadhan Laxman Dandge and his brother Pravin S/o Laxman Dandage are also resident of Misarwadi, Lane No.3, Aurangabad.
(d) The appellant and deceased Raju Misal were friends inter se.
(e) On the eve of Nagapanchami Festival inhabitants of Misarwadi, Lane No.3 locality had tied swing on the branch of big Peepal tree standing on eastern side of the internal road running in north south direction.
(f) On 26-07-2009 (i.e. on the day of Nagapanchami festival) at about 04.00 p.m. Raju Misal was swinging on the swing tied on the Peepal tree and the appellant Samadhan was pushing the swing. Rahul Misal (PW6), nephew of deceased Raju Misal was standing near the swing. While Raju Misal was enjoying swinging, all of a sudden, appellant stopped the movement of the swing by holding the same and got off Raju Misal from the swing. Upon getting off from the swing, appellant asked Raju Misal either to arrange liquor or accompany him for drinking liquor. When Raju Misal refused for the same, scuffle started between they two.
(g) Rahul Misal (PW6) and his friend Ravi Magre rushed forward for intervention.
(h) Meanwhile, Pravin Laxman Dandge (accused No.2), brother of appellant, and Gautam Misal (PW4), son of Bhagwan Misal and nephew of deceased Raju Misal came there one after another.
(i) Thereafter, Pravin Dandage (accused No.2) caught hold the deceased Raju Misal and upon that appellant Samadhan Dandge rushed forward and slashed neck of Raju Misal with a knife, taking it out from the pocket.
(j) After slashing the neck of Raju Misal, appellant turned towards Gautam Misal (PW4) and gave blows of the said knife on his neck and abdomen.
(k) Because of slashing of neck, Raju Misal suffered profuse bleeding injury and collapsed then and there only.
(l) After committing assault on Raju Misal and Gautam Misal (PW4), appellant and his brother Pravin (accused No.2) ran away from the spot.
(m) Gautam Misal (PW4) and Rahul Misal (PW6) carried Raju Misal to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad, in an auto-rickshaw.
(n) Soon after examining, Medical Officer on duty declared Raju Misal dead and provided medial aid to Gautam Misal (PW4).
(o) Then on the very same day at about 05.30 p.m. Gautam Misal (PW4), victim and eye witness of the incident, lodged the report narrating aforesaid incident.
(p) On the basis of the report lodged by Gautam Misal (PW4) Crime bearing No. 248 of 2009 was registered at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, against the appellant and his brother Pravin both, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.
(q) Investigation of the said crime commenced as expected.
(r) During the course of investigation, on the same day i.e. on 26-07-2009 at about 06.00 p.m. to 07.10 p.m. spot inspection was carried out in prese
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
