In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the murder conviction in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Accused No.1. The judgment reinforces the accountability for criminal offenses, ensuring justice for the victim and their family. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the judicial process, setting a precedent for upholding the rule of law.
Facts
- During a meeting, electric supply suddenly went off leading to a dispute between the accused and the complainant.
- Accused No.1, appellant Kamlakar, accused Kailash of causing the electric supply disconnection, resulting in an exchange of abuses.
- Accused persons tried to assault the complainant and another individual, who then fled to a police station to lodge a complaint.
- Accused No.1 inflicted a fatal blow on Dhammanand with a ‘katti’ leading to his death.
- Accused Nos. 2 to 6 were charged but acquitted in the case.
- The appellant, accused No.1, was aggrieved by the judgement and appealed to the High Court.
- The High Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.
- Accused No. 1 was convicted while Accused Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of all charges.
- The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The State of Maharashtra challenged the acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 to 6, but the appeal has attained finality.
Also Read: Address Update Requirement: Legal Implications for Corporate Entities
Issue
- The issue at hand is whether the concurrent judgments passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court in convicting the accused No.1, the appellant, are justified.
- The focus is on the consistency and validity of the judgments rendered by the two courts in relation to the appellant’s conviction.
- The central consideration is to evaluate whether the decisions made by the Sessions Court and the High Court align with the evidence and legal framework presented in the case.
- Determining the justification of the concurrent judgments involves a detailed analysis of the reasoning, evidence, and legal principles applied by both courts in convicting the appellant.
Also Read: Army Discharge Case: Upholding Justice for Long Service Rendered
Arguments
- The evidence of Shri Baburao (PW-1) and Shri Rashtrapal (PW-8) as eye witnesses is considered unreliable.
- Witnesses stated in cross-examination that they did not see the carpet spread on the cot.
- The wooden cot shown in the map of the spot panchnama is not visible unless one enters inside the accused Dilip’s house.
- There is no possibility of the witnesses having seen the murder by the appellant.
- The recovery of the weapon used in the crime is also questioned by the appellant’s counsel.
- The appellant’s counsel contests the prosecution’s story of the appellant committing the murder of Dhammanand.
- The respondent’s counsel presented a detailed consideration of the appellant’s role in the case.
- The Court examined the autopsy report which indicated the cause of death as ‘haemorrhagic shock due to chop wound over neck’.
- The post mortem examination concluded it was a homicidal death, suggesting foul play.
- The Sessions Court and High Court made their decisions based on the evidence presented, which the respondent argues do not warrant interference.
Also Read: Justice Served: Supreme Court Ruling on CBI Inquiry against Army Officer
Analysis
- The recovery of the ‘katti’ weapon and the forensic report supported the prosecution’s case.
- Witnesses testified that accused Nos. 5 and 6 were at the door of the accused’s house, possibly witnessing the incident.
- The sequence of events leading to the incident inside the house of accused No.3 was considered.
- Eyewitnesses – Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8) stated the events as per the complaint.
- Blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the ‘katti’ weapon were recovered from the appellant’s house.
- The recovery of the weapon and the forensic reports supported the prosecution’s version.
- The courts thoroughly reviewed the evidence before arriving at a conclusion.
- The argument against the believability of weapon recovery was dismissed.
- The concurrent judgment found the appellant guilty of committing murder
- The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
- There is no reason to deviate from the concurrent judgment’s decision
Decision
- The appeal is lacking in merit
- The appeal has been dismissed
Case Title: KAMLAKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001432-001432 / 2012
