Back
R. G. AVACHAT, NEERAJ P. DHOTE
Prabhu S/o Maroti Gundle – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The appellant was convicted under IPC Sections 302 and 324 for murder and assault, with a life sentence and fine (!) - Eye-witness testimony of PW1 and PW2, corroborated by independent witness and medical evidence, established homicidal death and identity of the assailant (!) (!) - The Appellant met with an accident after the incident; Article 13 Koyta/Katti seized from the spot and later at the accident site supported prosecution; alibi and defense were rejected; appeal dismissed (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
1. This Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 98/2020, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing as under:
(b) Suffer rigorous imprisonment for Three Years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only), in default to pay fine, suffer simple imprisonment for Two Months for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C.
2. The Prosecution’s case as revealed from the Police Report is as under:
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and assault, emphasizing the reliability of eye-witness testimony and medical evidence confirming the homicidal nature of death.
The court determined that the Appellant's actions lacked intent to kill, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II instead of Section 302.
The court established that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt, and the appellant's actions were mitigated by grave and sudden provocation, reducing the charge from murd....
The distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and not amounting to murder is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and all evidence, including eyewitness testimony, dying ....
The court established that circumstantial evidence must conclusively point to guilt, and in this case, the evidence supported a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of....
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
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
