Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kamlakar, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Dhammanand. The incident occurred on March 13, 2005, following a dispute over an electric supply outage. The appellant, along with five others, was charged under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted only the appellant under Section 302 IPC, acquitting the other accused. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court, in this appeal, examined the evidence of eye witnesses Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8), the recovery of the weapon 'katti' at the instance of the appellant, and the forensic report. The Court found the eye witness testimony credible, noting that the witnesses had a clear view of the incident despite being at the threshold of the house. The recovery of the weapon and the forensic evidence further supported the prosecution. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on eye witness testimony and recovery of weapon - The appellant was convicted for murder of Dhammanand by inflicting a blow with a 'katti' on the neck. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-8 credible despite minor inconsistencies, and the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant corroborated the prosecution case. Held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence do not warrant interference (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder are justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- Eye witness testimony credible despite minor inconsistencies
- Recovery of weapon at instance of accused corroborates prosecution case
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No.1432 of 2012
Shri Amit Sharma for appellant, Shri Nishant R. Katneshwarkar for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murder of Dhammanand and sentenced to life imprisonment; he challenged the concurrent judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; High Court confirmed the conviction. Other accused were acquitted.
Issues
Whether the eye witness testimony of PW-1 and PW-8 is reliable.
Whether the recovery of the weapon 'katti' at the instance of the appellant is satisfactorily established.
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts warrant interference.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that eye witnesses could not have seen the incident as they were outside the house and the wooden cot was not visible from outside.
Appellant contended that recovery of weapon was not satisfactorily established.
Respondent argued that the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings should not be disturbed.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact based on credible eye witness testimony and corroborative evidence such as recovery of weapon and forensic report are not interfered with unless perverse. The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The same would indicate that it was a homicidal death.
In that circumstance, when the weapon used for committing the offence had been recovered in the manner known to law and the appropriate reports were also obtained, the contention on behalf of the appellant that the recovery of the weapon is not believable cannot be accepted.
In such circumstances, when the concurrent judgment based upon the evidence have found the appellant to be guilty of the charge alleged against him in committing the murder and had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, we see no other reason to take a different view.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court at Nanded on August 16, 2006. He appealed to the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, which dismissed his appeal on August 14, 2009. The State's appeal against acquittal of other accused was also dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, where delay of 797 days was condoned on January 30, 2012, and leave was granted on September 14, 2012. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on May 31, 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 302
