#murder Archives - Page 5 of 6

22 Aug

Bombay High Court dismisses appeal challenging the conviction order under Sec. 302 IPC

Prime Legal

blog #appeal, #bombayhighcourt, #kidnapping, #murder

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

Click to view judgment

3 Aug

Bombay High Court acquits a man convicted for murder for lack of evidence

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhighcourt, #lackofevidence, #murder, acquittal

Title: Suresh v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Decided on: 18th JULY, 2023

+ Cri.Apeal.513/2016

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

Facts of the Case:

Appellant had illicit relations with one Shobhabai. Deceased Anil desisted appellant from maintaining and continuing such relations. Therefore, according to prosecution, deceased was viewed as obstruction and to eliminate him, appellant called him near the water tank and by use of knife he stabbed him to death and thereafter threw the body in the well for causing disappearance of evidence. Hence, he convicted for offences under IPC Sec. 302 and 201. This was challenged by him in this appeal.

Issues

Was the conviction of the appellant valid?

Contentions

The appellants claimed that the conviction was wrong for there was no incriminating evidence proving his guilt; The conviction was based only on circumstantial evidence and not any direct evidence. The prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt.

The Respondents contented that the appellant was rightly contended as there was enough incriminating evidence. The appellant being the last person in the company of deceased, he is rightly arrested, tried and rightly held guilty. As per the statement of the deceased’s wife he went to the tank (place where he was found dead) only after receiving a call from the appellant. The appellant was also seen purchasing a knife. All the evidence directly points to his involvement in the death and therefore, he is rightly convicted.

Decision

The evidence presented by the Respondents is not direct evidence. None of the circumstances firmly and cogently proved beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is not getting complete. Therefore, case of prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the appellant was acquitted and the previous order of the Court was set aside.

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view the Judgment

2 Aug

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence In Murder Case; Says Eyewitness facts Contradictory, Should Be Backed With Supporting Material

Prime Legal

Blog #eyewitness, #Karnataka High Court, #murder

Title: K P Pushpesh & Others And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2016

Date of Order 21-06-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE K SOMASHEKHAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has acquitted three youths convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for charges of murder, holding that there were material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution failed to corroborate their evidence with any other material.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves the prosecution’s claim that, the deceased Nousheer was murdered by accused No. 1 to 3 due to ill-will between them and with a common intention. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1 and 2 restrained Nousheer near the house of CW.6-Raman and assaulted him with a sickle, causing grievous injuries, resulting in his death. Accused No. 3 was alleged to have facilitated the murder by providing information about the movements of the deceased to accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The prosecution’s main evidence relied on two eyewitnesses, PW.22 and PW.24, who were neighbors and claimed to have seen the incident. However, the defense counsel contended that the trial court solely relied on the inconsistent testimony of these eyewitnesses, PW.22 and PW.24, without scrutinizing their evidence. The defense pointed out that the eyewitnesses did not attempt to prevent the accused from committing the crime, nor did they raise any alarm or inform the police about the incident. Additionally, they failed to identify the weapons allegedly used in the murder.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Court referred to the evidence of the eyewitnesses and said “On careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, we are of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Senior counsels for the appellants about the evidence deposed by these witnesses in respect of the incident witness by them, cannot be relied to the fullest extent to prove the guilt of the accused.” it further set aside life sentence in murder case; says eyewitness account contradictory, should be backed with supporting material.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Click here to see the judgement

1 Aug

If the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary and free from suspicion, it CAN be the basis for conviction: Bombay High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #appeal, #bombayhighcourt, #dismissed, #dyingdeclaration, #law, #murder, #sec302IPC

Title: Bhagwan Ramdas Tupe v. The State of Maharashtra

Decided on: 28th JULY, 2023

+ CRL.A. 530 OF 2016

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Facts of the Case

Bhagwan Ramdas Tupe (BRT) was previously convicted for Murder of one Vithabai, his neighbour and was thereof sentenced to life imprisonment. BRT appealed to the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay HC and sought acquittal on the basis that there were inconsistencies between the dying declarations of 2 witnesses.

The respondents sought for the dismissal of the appeal for there was no “inconsistency” at all. According to them the minor details may have been inconsistent, but overall, the story in both the dying declarations and Prime Witnesses is the same.

It was alleged that BRT had poured kerosene and tembha, i.e., burning wood, on Vithabai, due to which she sustained major burn injuries. She had not died instantly, she succumbed to the injuries only 2 months after the incident and before her death she gave her dying declaration to the Inspector.

Issues

Should the Dying Declaration of Vithabai be considered the basis for conviction?

Decision

The Court decided on the dying declaration made by Vithabai that although she had injuries, she was mentally sound and able to speak. In fact, her dying declaration corroborated with the Prime Witnesses’ story and therefore, the dying declaration made by her was truthful, voluntary and free from any suspicion.

Thus, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Written by – Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

27 Jun

Landmark Ruling: Karnataka High Court Downgrades Conviction, Sentences Man for Grievous Hurt Instead of Attempted Murder, in Testicle Squeezing Case

Prime Legal

Blog #Karnataka High Court, #murder, Prime Legal

Karnataka High Court

Parameshwarappa V. The State

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2012

Bench- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

Decided On 01-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The prosecution’s case revolves around the complaint lodged by PW.1, Omkarappa, whose statement was recorded by the police in the hospital on 16.03.2010. According to the complaint (Ex.P.1), on the evening of 15.03.2010 at around 6:00 p.m., the complainant was driving his tractor when the accused suddenly appeared in front of his motorcycle and stared at him. Later that night, at approximately 10:00 p.m., during a village fair procession for Narasimhaswamy, while the complainant and others were dancing, the accused allegedly approached him with the intention to commit murder. The accused instigated a quarrel, verbally abused the complainant using derogatory language, and physically assaulted him by squeezing his testicles, causing internal injuries to a vital part of his body.

Several eyewitnesses, namely Ananda, Rama, Murthy, and Kumara, intervened and pacified the quarrel. They then helped the injured PW.1 and took him to the hospital. At the hospital, a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was prepared and forwarded to the police. Subsequently, the police recorded the complainant’s statement and registered the FIR in Crime No.26/2010. The accused was apprehended, placed in judicial custody, and later released on bail. The investigation was completed, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. During the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, opting for a trial. The prosecution presented ten witnesses (PWs.1 to 10) and nine documents (Exs.P.1 to P.9) as evidence. After the conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The accused, however, chose to deny all allegations and did not present any evidence in his defense. Following the arguments, the trial court found the accused guilty, convicted him, and imposed the aforementioned prison sentence. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellant has appealed to the Court.

Judgement

the court made modifications to the conviction of an accused individual who was initially charged with attempted murder. The court instead convicted the accused of a lesser offense of grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The basis for this decision was the act of squeezing the testicles of the complainant during a fight.

The court examined the circumstances of the case and stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant at the scene. During this quarrel, the accused chose to squeeze the testicles of the complainant. The court reasoned that this act alone did not demonstrate an intention or premeditation to commit murder. If the accused had indeed intended to commit murder, the court noted, it would have been expected for the accused to carry deadly weapons.

The court emphasized that the accused had not brought any deadly weapons with him, indicating that there was no premeditated plan to commit murder. However, the court acknowledged that the testicles are a vital part of the body and causing harm to them can be potentially life-threatening. In this particular case, as the complainant had to undergo surgery and have his testicles removed, the court held that the offense committed by the accused fell under the category of grievous hurt.

Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence passed by the trial court, finding the accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder), was incorrect. The court determined that the offense committed by the accused clearly fell within the scope of Section 325 of the IPC (grievous hurt). Therefore, the court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction accordingly.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgement

1 … 3 4 5 6