1. Appellant stabbed deceased with a knife at a marriage party, causing death, prosecuted for murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. (Para 4000709990001 , 4000709990033 , 4000709990002 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha, JJ.
Rakesh @ Bhaiya Shambhuprasad Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2014
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Indian Penal Code - Offences - Sections 302, 323 r/w Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the nature of the death of the deceased, the medical evidence, the authorship of the homicidal injuries, the evidence of eyewitnesses, the inquest panchanama, the post-mortem report, the motive for the accused to commit the crime, and the incriminating circumstances. The court concluded that the prosecution established the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant and co-accused were engaged as waiters at a marriage function. They caused a nuisance, leading to a confrontation with the first informant and his brother. The Appellant attacked the deceased with a knife, resulting in his death. The prosecution charged the Appellant with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, inquest panchanama, post-mortem report, and incriminating circumstances. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decision.
Issues: The nature of the death of the deceased, authorship of the homicidal injuries, motive for the accused to commit the crime, reliability of eyewitnesses' evidence, and incriminating circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and trustworthy evidence of eyewitnesses, medical testimony, inquest panchanama, post-mortem report, and incriminating circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to convict the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC was upheld.
1. Appellant stabbed deceased with a knife at a marriage party, causing death, prosecuted for murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. (Para 4000709990001 , 4000709990033 , 4000709990002 )
2. Discrepancies in eyewitness testimony and between inquest panchnama and post-mortem report create reasonable doubt; eyewitnesses not independently examined. (Para 4000709990015 , 4000709990021 , 4000709990022 , 4000709990025 )
3. Appeal dismissed; conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC upheld. (Para 4000709990033 )
Minor discrepancies in peripheral circumstances do not invalidate credible eyewitness testimony; courts should not reject evidence merely due to variations in narration if the core account is consistent and trustworthy. (Para 4000709990015 , 4000709990016 , 4000709990017 )
Interested evidence from a related witness is not automatically unreliable; relationship does not reduce credibility, and such evidence can sustain conviction if found intrinsically reliable. (Para 4000709990018 , 4000709990019 , 4000709990020 )
Neither inquest report nor post-mortem report is substantive evidence; discrepancies between them cannot be termed fatal or suspicious, and do not warrant benefit to the accused. (Para 4000709990022 , 4000709990023 , 4000709990024 )
Finding blood stains of deceased's blood group on accused's clothes without plausible explanation is an incriminating circumstance connecting the accused to the crime. (Para 4000709990027 , 4000709990028 )
Where the accused inflicted a knife blow on the chest causing death, with knowledge of the likely fatal consequence, and without grave and sudden provocation, the offence falls within Section 300 IPC. (Para 4000709990032 )
JUDGMENT
R.N.Laddha, J. - In this Appeal, judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.206 of 2012, is the subject matter of challenge. The Appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations, respectively. The co-accused, namely, Imran alias Balya Aslam Khan was, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 r/w 34 of the Penal Code.
2. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as follows :
On 28.6.2012, in the evening, there was a marriage function, and the order for a marriage dinner was placed with the first informant and his brother, Raju Singh. The Appellant and co-accused Imran had engaged there on daily wages as the waiters. They had come there by consuming liquor and started causing a nuisance to the servers. The brother of the complainant Raju Singh tried to pursue them. At about 10 p.m., after the dinner was over at the marriage party, the waiters were taking the feed. The Appellant and the co-accused again started causing a nuisance. At that time, Raju Singh had tried to pursue them, but they were not listening to Raju Singh. At about 11.30 p.m., Raju Singh asked them to leave the premises. Both the Accused then had gone from that place. However, they called Raju Singh to come outside the premises.
When the deceased had been to the Appellant and the co-accused Imran, they raised quarrels with him. The first informant had reached on the spot to intervene, but the Appellant had taken out the knife and attempted to give a blow of knife on his chest. The first informant, Bhavar Singh, had managed to catch hold the hands of the Appellant. He, however, sustained a cutting injury to his hand. It is also the case of the prosecution that co-accused Imran had caught hold neck of the first informant and made him fall to the ground. The Appellant then attacked Raju Singh. He gave a knife blow to his chest. Due to this, Raju Singh received an injury and collapsed on the ground. People gathered on the spot and caught hold of Rakesh. However, the co-accused Imran succeeded in running away from the site. Raju Singh was removed to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries before admission.
3. At about 1.10 a.m. on 29.6.2021, the first informant Bhavar Singh (PW 1) went to Nashik Road Police Station and lodged the FIR (Exhibit 21). Accordingly, crime vide C.R.No.170 of 2012 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The investigation commenced thereon. The police visited the scene of the crime and drew Panchnama in the presence of public witnesses. While drawing Panchnama police seized plain earth and earth mixed with blood, and the knife with blood stains. The police arrested the co-accused, Imran. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was held. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. The police interrogated the witnesses and recorded their statements. The Appellant, Rakesh, was also admitted to the hospital. After his discharge, he was arrested.
4. The clothes of the first informant, the deceased and the Appellant, which they wore at the time of occurrence, were also seized. All the incriminating articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nashik. Police procured post-mortem notes and reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory. As the investigation revealed the complicity of the Accused persons, the investigating officer lodged a charge sheet against them. The learned Magistrate, after ensuing compliance u/s 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where the Accused were put to trial. The Accus
AI
Eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be deemed credible and sufficient for conviction, even in the absence of independent corroboration, provided their accounts are consistent and reliable....
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent witness testimony, and acquittal appeals require high scrutiny, with previous enmity not negating witness credibility.
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