Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Nandesh S.Deshpande
Vishwas @ Guddu Rajesh Dahiwale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellants (the accused persons) have challenged judgment and order dated 16.7.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (learned Judge of the trial court), in Sessions Trial No.48/2016.
2. By the said judgment impugned in the appeal, the accused persons are convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year..
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
On 28.9.2015, Rakesh Ramteke (the deceased) had a quarrel with the accused persons who are residents of the same locality. During the said quarrel, the deceased was threatened to kill. On 29.9.2016, at about 11:00 pm, after dinner, the complainant and her children were about to sleep and the deceased was standing outside the house. Around 11:30 pm, the complainant heard the shouts from outside^^ek# udk ek# udk** and, therefore, the complainant and her children immediately came out and witnessed that the accused persons are assaulting the deceased with log and wooden stumps in their hands. The c
Conviction for murder under Section 302 established through credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite minor inconsistencies and investigation delays.
Intention in culpable homicide is inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the location of injuries, and conduct indicating a purposeful act to achieve a harmful outcome.
The court emphasized that direct and circumstantial evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when eyewitness accounts, along with credible medical evidence, corroborate th....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the sole eyewitness testimony, corroborative evidence, and the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in confirming....
The court held that conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly point to guilt, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of collectively considering the testimonies of eye-witnesses and the admissibility of evidence in establishing guilt in a criminal c....
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
