Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
VINAY JOSHI, VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
Kamlesh S/o Narayan Dubey – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2022
Decided On : 12-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.V. Mahajan
For the Respondent: M.H. Deshmukh
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the brutal nature of the act and rejecting defenses of provocation or self-defense.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 235(2) - Conviction for murder - Appellants convicted for life imprisonment for the murder of Sumit Kamble, with evidence of multiple stab wounds and crush injuries from a vehicle - The court found no merit in the defense of provocation or self-defense, affirming the brutal nature of the act. (Paras 1, 21)
(B) Evidence - Direct evidence from three eyewitnesses established the guilt of the accused, corroborated by medical evidence indicating multiple stab and crush injuries - The court emphasized the consistency of eyewitness accounts and the brutality of the act. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, Kamlesh Dube and Shekhar Dube, were convicted for the murder of Sumit Kamble, stemming from a personal dispute related to Kamlesh's marriage to Sumit's sister. The incident involved a violent confrontation where both accused stabbed Sumit and subsequently ran over him with a vehicle. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved the murder charge beyond reasonable doubt, with the evidence indicating a premeditated and brutal act rather than a spontaneous reaction. (Paras 21)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the conviction under Section 302 IPC and whether the act fell under any exceptions to murder. (Paras 10, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of multiple stab wounds and the act of running over the victim demonstrated a clear intention to kill, rejecting claims of provocation or self-defense. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 39/2018 (State Vs. Kamlesh Dube and Others) thereby questioning the legality of judgment and order of convicting both the appellants under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing both of them for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer 3 months imprisonment.
2. The facts in short are as under:
On 19.09.2017, one Sumit Kamble died at about 1.46 p.m. It is alleged that appellant Kamlesh Dube and Shekhar Dube committed his murder. It is the prosecution case that both accused and the deceased were working as a driver on garbage vehicle at Kanak Resources Company. On the day of incident i.e. on 19.09.2017 at about 1.46 p.m. Sumit along with his friend Rahul and Yogiraj went to the Bhandewadi Dumping Yard by riding on the motorcycle of Sumit. At said place, the sister of informant Rahul and other women were picking the garbage. Kamlesh and Shekhar both accused also went there to unload the garbage by their garbage vehicle. Kamlesh was on driving seat whilst Shekhar was sitting beside him. Kamlesh has married with the sister of deceased Sumit. Kamlesh and sister of Sumit namely Tanu were having love affair, which was not liked by Sumit. Both of them ran away and performed marriage before 15 days. On their return, sister of Sumit was staying with Kamlesh. Because of said marriage, there was dispute between Kamlesh and Sumit. They used to quarrel with each other. On the date of occurrence, when Sumit saw Kamlesh, he went to him and there was hot exchange of words between them. At that time, Shekhar alighted from truck and assaulted Sumit with knife on his back, stomach and other parts of the body. Sumit started running, however, Kamlesh also got down from the vehicle and assaulted Sumit by means of knife. Due to said assault, Sumit fell down, on which, Kamlesh went to his vehicle and drove the vehicle on the person of Sumit. The police were called by the informant and others. Informant Rahul Deshmukh set the criminal law into motion by lodging report against the accused, pursuant to which, the offence vide Crime No. 354/2017 came to be registered and investigation commenced.
3. Police visited the spot of incident and carried Spot Panchanama. At the time of drawing Spot Panchanama, the dead body was lying on the spot, which was latter sent for the postmortem. The Inquest Panchanama was drawn followed by the postmortem. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Nagpur. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The accused have denied the guilt.
4. The prosecution has examined total 10 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
5. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. Three eye witnesses have stated that both the accused stabbed the deceased and caused him to fell down. Then accused Kamlesh drove the vehicle on the person of the deceased. According to appellants, though the prosecution case is about driving the vehicle on the person of the deceased, however, there are no crush injuries on the person of deceased. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the evidence of doctor, who has conducted the postmortem.
6. PW-9 Dr. Rajesh has stated that there were as many as 8 stab wound on the person of deceased. Apart from that there were contusions, abrasions, lacerated and incised wounds. The doctor has opined that the maxillary bone and mandible on both sides were fractured and all the injuries we
