Bombay High Court dismisses appeal challenging the conviction order under Sec. 302 IPC
Title: Smt. Sangita Vilas Kiwade v. State of Maharashtra
Decided on: 4th JULY 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2021
CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & GAURI GODSE, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on November 18, 2010, in Mukundnagar, Dias plot Canal at Gultekdi, Pune. The appellant was allegedly involved in an illegal money-lending business and had lent a sum of Rs. 50,000 at 10% interest to the complainant two years prior to the incident. Allegedly harboring resentment over non-repayment of the loan, the appellant kidnapped the complainant’s grandchildren – Rohit (9), Rahul (7), Anmol (5), and Tejas (3). The appellant then took them in an auto-rickshaw to the canal and pushed Rohit, Rahul, and Anmol into the water, attempting to kill them. Tejas drowned in the canal, and his body was found later. The prosecution charged the appellant under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 , 307 (attempted murder), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 32-B(b) of the Bombay Money Lenders Act 1946.
Issues:
The main issues revolve around the credibility of the child witnesses’ testimonies, the intention of the appellant, and whether the evidence supports the charges of attempted murder, kidnapping, and money-lending without a valid license.
Contentions:
The prosecution argued that the child witnesses’ consistent accounts, along with the corroborative evidence, indicated that the appellant had lured the children with ice cream, kidnapped them, and attempted to kill them. They also emphasized the presence of the appellant’s daughter at the scene and her objections to the appellant’s actions. The prosecution asserted that the evidence established the appellant’s intent to commit the crimes.
The Respondents contended that the child witnesses’ testimonies were unreliable and possibly influenced by tutoring. They argued that inconsistencies in the evidence, as well as natural connections between the families, cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. They also argued that the incident might have been an unfortunate accident rather than a premeditated act.
Decision:
After examining the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the court found the child witnesses’ testimonies to be credible and consistent. The court emphasized that the witnesses had undergone preliminary questioning to ensure their understanding and ability to provide rational answers. It ruled that their evidence, along with corroborating testimonies and other evidence, supported the prosecution’s case.
The court held that the appellant’s act of pushing the children into the canal indicated a clear intent to harm and even kill them. The court also found the evidence sufficient to establish the offense of kidnapping and upheld the appellant’s conviction for attempted murder, kidnapping, and money-lending without a valid license under relevant sections of the IPC and the Bombay Money Lenders Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law