SHRI VISHWAS @ GUDDU RAJESH DAHIWALE AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF MAH., THR. PSO PS JARIPATKA NAGPUR
Upholding Murder Conviction: High Court Affirms Reliance on Eyewitnesses, Medical Evidence, and DNA Reports, Despite Minor Procedural Lapses and Hostile Witnesses.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:13350-DB
Decision Date: 01-12-2025
List of Laws
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Appreciation of Evidence; Hostile Witness; Circumstantial Evidence; Medical Evidence; Common Intention
- Facts: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC for causing the death of Rakesh Ramteke. The prosecution alleged that on 29.9.2016, the appellants assaulted the deceased with logs and wooden stumps following a prior quarrel. The complainant, the deceased's wife, and her children witnessed the assault.
- Procedural Posture: The appellants challenged the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in a Criminal Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
- Issue: Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimonies, circumstantial evidence, and medical evidence?
- Holding: The High Court upheld the conviction.
- Reasoning: The Court found the evidence of the eyewitnesses (wife, daughter, son of the deceased, and an independent witness) to be consistent and reliable. The Court noted that the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not strictly apply in Indian criminal law, and discrepancies in witness testimonies can be due to normal errors. The Court also considered the medical evidence, which established that the death was homicidal and caused by the injuries inflicted. The Court addressed the defense's arguments regarding delays in recording statements and forwarding articles for analysis, stating that these defects did not undermine the core prosecution case. The Court emphasized that the presence of the accused at the spot with weapons indicated a common intention to commit the crime, referencing Section 34 of the IPC. The Court also relied on the DNA report, admissible under Section 293 of the CrPC, which linked the accused to the crime. The Court cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Hari Obula Reddy and ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, and Subramanya vs. The State of Karnataka, to support its reasoning on the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the effect of hostile pancha witnesses.
🔒 For Members Only