Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V.KOTWAL, SHYAM C.CHANDAK
Shashikant Shantaram Tavare – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to conviction for homicide (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of love relationship and events leading to incident (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. witness testimonies on relationship and threats (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 16) |
| 4. investigation and forensic evidence (Para 12 , 21) |
| 5. arguments related to suicide pact and misconceptions of the defence (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. court's reasoning on murder vs. suicide (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. conclusion affirming the conviction (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 26.09.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.257 of 2016. The learned Judge, convicted the Appellant for commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for two months. The Appellant was also convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/s.309 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurre
The court affirmed that mutual suicidal intent was not established, holding the appellant solely responsible for the victim's murder, as the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed that premeditated murder requires intent and that corroborative evidence from an eyewitness, alongside forensic data, can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Murder - Conviction upheld - Medical evidence also shows that deceased had suffered injuries on head as mentioned earlier - Cause of death was “head injury.” Looking at nature of injuries, it is quit....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in....
The judgment establishes that the intention of the accused and the circumstances of the act are pivotal in determining the offense under Section 307 I.P.C., and the nature of the injuries alone is no....
The conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intent to cause death, not necessarily severe injuries; intent can be inferred from circumstances and actions during the incident.
The judgment reinforces that intent and premeditation in violent crimes are critical for establishing guilt under IPC sections related to murder and attempted murder.
The reliability of the injured eye-witnesses' testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
