Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
Anil L.Pansare, Raj D.Wakode
Rahul S/o. Devidas Mahapure – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R AJ D. WAKODE, J.
Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Case No.83 of 2016. The appellants in both the present appeals were original accused No.1 and accused No.2 in First Information Report No.0134 of 2016 registered by the respondent – Police Station, Amdapur, District Buldana, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, “the IPC ”).
2. Both the accused are convicted by the learned Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in-default to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. Thus, both the present appeals are being decided by the common judgment.
3. The appellants herein were prosecuted and charged by the learned Sessions Court for committing murder of one Vinod @ Bablu Sadashiv Mahapure on 31.03.2016 between 01:00 and 01:30 hours in the premises of Cotton Market of Amdapur, Taluka Chikhli, District Buldana. The case of the prosecution was that deceased Vi
The court ruled that suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction; proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, which the prosecution failed to meet.
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence of eyewitnesses must be reliable and consistent to prove the accused's complicity in the offence.
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....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence.
Eyewitness accounts unreliable due to inconsistencies, visibility doubts (distances, covered faces, hiding), suppressed initial report; benefit of doubt requires acquittal in multiple murder case by ....
An acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and the appellate court must not disturb findings unless clear error is established.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 and assault under Section 324, ruling that credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence met the burden of proof beyond reasonabl....
The court affirmed that a prosecution's reliance on uncorroborated testimony is inadequate for a murder conviction, emphasizing the necessity for reliable evidence to ensure justice.
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
