Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V.KOTWAL, SHYAM C.CHANDAK
Rakesh Mahadu Dandekar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details of the appellants. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. circumstances and motives behind the murder. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence and witness examination during trial. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. defense arguments regarding the lack of evidence. (Para 28 , 32) |
| 5. court's reasoning on evidentiary issues. (Para 36 , 40) |
| 6. final judgment and order set aside. (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT :
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
1. The Appellants have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 02/04/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, in Sessions Case No.05/2009. The Appellants were the original accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. There were two more accused who were acquitted from all the charges.
2. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellants were convicted as follows ;
(i) The Appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year.
(ii) Both of them were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and
Convictions based on unreliable confessions and hostile witness testimonies fail to meet the burden of proof required for criminal liability, leading to acquittal.
Confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless recorded in the presence of independent witnesses and linked to the discovery of evidence, highlighting the necessity for proper procedural ....
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
The admissibility of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mandatory provision of inflicting a fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
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....
Conviction based solely on confessions of co-accused is insufficient; prosecution must provide corroborating evidence 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
