IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Rohit B. Deo, Urmila Joshi-Phalke, JJ.
Radheshyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 2019
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 - 302 - The judgment and order dated 16.3.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.433/2015 - The court discussed the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity and highlighted the significance of the medical witness's testimony in establishing the cause of death. The court also emphasized the principle that the evidence of a sole eyewitness can be accepted if found truthful and credible. The court found no perversity in the findings of the lower court and dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and order of conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased by assaulting him with a knife. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of witnesses, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence, established the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity and highlighted the significance of the medical witness's testimony in establishing the cause of death. The court also emphasized the principle that the evidence of a sole eyewitness can be accepted if found truthful and credible. The court found no perversity in the findings of the lower court and dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and order of conviction.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the testimony of witnesses, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence to address these issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity and highlighted the significance of the medical witness's testimony in establishing the cause of death. The court also emphasized the principle that the evidence of a sole eyewitness can be accepted if found truthful and credible. The court found no perversity in the findings of the lower court and dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and order of conviction.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order dated 16.3.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.433/2015 was confirmed. The record and proceedings were to be sent back to the Trial Court, and the fees for the appellant's counsel were quantified.
JUDGMENT
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J. - By this appeal, the appellant challenges judgment and order dated 16.3.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.433/2015 whereby he is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant is also given set-off under Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code since he was in jail.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri S.G.Joshi appointed for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T.A.Mirza for the State.
3. The material on the case of the prosecution unfolds as under:
on 22.4.2015, informant Ganesh Manu Kodwate had lodged report at Deolapur Police Station, district Nagpur contending that he is serving in Defence as Constable and posted at Arunachal Pradesh. His family members i.e. wife, mother, deceased brother Manoj and wife of Manoj are staying at Junewani. On 14.4.2015, he came to Junewani on leave for 45 days. It is alleged by him in the First Information Report that on 22.4.2015 he had been to village Deolapar and returned at about 11:15 a.m. to Junewani. After returning home, his wife informed him that a quarrel had taken place between his brother Manoj and Radheshyam, the appellant (for short, the accused). It is further alleged by him that when he was taking lunch, one Anil Uike came to his house and informed him that the accused had given a knife blow on the person of Manoj. He immediately rushed to Umri and visited the house of the accused, but he came to know that the incident occurred at Junewani. When he was returning, his wife informed him that the alleged incident had occurred at the house of one Kawadu Kokode. The informant immediately rushed towards the house of said Kawadu and saw that his brother Manoj was lying in an injured condition and sustained injuries on chest, shoulder, and cheeks. He immediately removed Manoj to the Government Hospital, but he was declared dead. It is alleged that his one of brothers namely Manohar is staying at the house of the accused. The quarrel was taken place as Manoj had brought daughter of Manohar at his house.
4. On the basis of the said report, the crime was registered vide Crime No.20/2015. After registration of the crime, Investigating Officer has visited the alleged spot of the incident and drawn the spot panchnama. The incriminating article knife was seized from the spot of incident during the investigation. The blood stained clothes of the deceased as well as blood stained clothes of the accused were seized. The incriminating articles were forwarded to Chemical Analyzer. The Investigating Officer had collected the postmortem notes and Chemical Analyzer's Reports and after completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet against the accused.
5. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused vide Exhibit-
5. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses, as mentioned below:
| 1. | Ganesh Manu Kodwate | (PW1) | Exh.9 | Informant |
| 2. | Shatrughan Dharmuji Dhurve | (PW2) | Exh.12 | pancha on spot |
| 3. | Mankar Dataram Naitam | (PW3) | Exh.16 | pancha on spot and seizure of knife |
| 4. | Vanita Manoj Kodwate | (PW4) | Exh.17 | wife of deceased |
| 5. | Purushottam Babulal Kokode | (PW5) | Exh.18 | pancha on seizure on blood stained clothes of accused |
| 6. | Pratibha Hemraj Kokode | (PW6) | Exh.24 | who has seen the accused fleeing from house of Dhanraj Kokode; |
| 7. | Dhanraj Kawaduji Kokode | (PW7) | Exh.25 | eyewitness |
| 8. | Dr.Netradeep Dilipkumar Katkar | (PW8) | Exh.28 | Medical Officer |
| 9. | Deepak Atmaram Salunke | (PW9) | Exh.34 |
|
Intention in culpable homicide is inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the location of injuries, and conduct indicating a purposeful act to achieve a harmful outcome.
The court affirmed that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for actions taken in support of their common objective, showcasing the interplay between direct and circumstantial evidence in e....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.