Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandipkumar C.More, Mehroz K.Pathan
Rohit s/o Balaji Waghmare – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through : Police Inspector, MIDC Latur Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandipkumar C. More, J.
1. All these appeals have been filed by original accused No.1- Rohit Balaji Waghmare, accused No.2- Pawan Deelip Sarwade, and accused No.3- Alim @ Mangal s/o Fattulal Sayyad, respectively, against the common judgment and order dated 24/06/2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Judge”) in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, all the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “ IPC ”) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, with a default clause. However, the appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 504 read with of the .
2. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the road from Harangul Railway Station to Harangul (Bk), in front of the pan stall of Sunil Dnyanoba Boke (PW-3), situated opposite to Akshay Beer Bar and Pravin Beer Bar. On 29/01/2018, Prameshwar Baburao Lakhadive (the deceased) had gone to Akshay Beer Bar to consume liquor. All the appellants–accused were also present in the said bar, consuming
The principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a prearranged plan for joint criminal liability; mere presence does not suffice if no common purpose is established.
Homicide committed without any premeditation will not come within ambit of Section 302 of IPC.
The essential ingredient of motive/intention under Section 302 IPC must be established to convict a person for the offence of murder.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, based on the premeditated and intentional nature of the act leading to the homicidal death ....
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, and absence of these elements can lead to a lesser charge.
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, while a single impulsive act may lead to a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC....
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I, considering the absence of prior intent and planning.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
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
