Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kamlakar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 31, 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when based on eyewitness accounts and the recovery of a weapon, even if there are minor discrepancies in witness statements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was convicted of murder, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. The core issue revolved around whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench consisted of Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, with the judgment authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Dhammanand on March 13, 2005, at approximately 12:15 AM in Dhanegaon. The incident occurred following a dispute that began the previous evening. On March 12, 2005, at around 9:00 PM, during a meeting of the Mahila Alpa Bhachat Gat near Bouddha Mandir, an argument broke out between the appellant, Kamlakar, and Kailash, after an electric supply disruption. This altercation led to Kailash sustaining injuries. Later that night, around 10:00 PM, Kailash and his father, Sheshrao, filed a complaint at the Nanded (Rural) Police Station. This action further escalated the tension, leading to the events of the following morning.

Around 12:15 AM on March 13, 2005, Baburao (PW-1), Rashtrapal (PW-8), and others went to the house of Dilip (accused No. 3) to resolve the dispute. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 initially blocked their entry. Inside Dilip’s house, the accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 allegedly held Dhammanand, while the appellant, Kamlakar, inflicted a fatal blow to Dhammanand’s neck with a ‘katti,’ resulting in his immediate death. Following the murder, the accused chased Baburao and Rashtrapal, who then fled to the police station to file a complaint. The police registered the case as C.R. No. 55 of 2005 and initiated an investigation, leading to a charge sheet against the accused.

The appellant, along with five other accused, was charged under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. However, the other accused were acquitted. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, which upheld the Sessions Court’s decision. The State’s appeal against the acquittal of the other accused was also dismissed, reaching finality. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court at Nanded convicted the appellant, Kamlakar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The other accused were acquitted of all charges. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The State of Maharashtra also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the other accused. The High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Sessions Court’s judgment. The State’s appeal against the acquittal of the other accused reached finality. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rioting. It states, “Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon. It states, “Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the concept of common object in unlawful assembly. It states, “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

These sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, form the basis for the charges against the accused and the legal framework for the trial and subsequent appeals. Section 302 specifically addresses the act of murder, while Sections 147, 148, and 149 deal with rioting and unlawful assembly.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the prosecution’s story of the appellant committing the murder of Dhammanand was not believable.
• The appellant contended that the eyewitness accounts of Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8) were unreliable. Specifically, they stated in cross-examination that they did not see the carpet on the cot, and the wooden cot in the spot panchnama was not visible unless one entered the house of accused Dilip. Therefore, it was argued that the witnesses could not have seen the murder.
• The appellant further argued that the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the crime was not satisfactorily established.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the Sessions Court and High Court had made a detailed consideration of the appellant’s role in the murder.
• The respondent contended that the eyewitness accounts of Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8) were reliable.
• The respondent submitted that the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the crime was satisfactorily established.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the concurrent judgments passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court in convicting the accused No.1, namely, the appellant herein is justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in determining the punishment for murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the conviction was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Eyewitness Testimony: The court found the testimonies of Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8) to be credible, despite minor inconsistencies. Their accounts of the events leading up to the murder, and the murder itself, were consistent and corroborated each other.
• Recovery of Weapon: The recovery of the ‘katti’ (the weapon used) from the appellant’s house, along with the forensic report confirming it was used in the crime, was a significant factor.
• Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report confirmed that Dhammanand’s death was a result of a chop wound to the neck, corroborating the eyewitness accounts.
• Concurrent Findings: The fact that both the Sessions Court and the High Court had independently reviewed the evidence and arrived at the same conclusion was also a factor that weighed in the mind of the court.

The court reasoned that the minor discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts did not undermine their credibility. As noted by the court, “even if it is assumed that the accused Nos.5 and 6 were at the door and had prevented Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8) at entrance of the door of the house of accused No.3 – Dilip, it would only indicate that they were standing at the threshold of the entrance to the house and in such circumstance there was every possibility of witnessing the occurrence of the incident in the house of the accused.” The court also emphasized that the recovery of the weapon was done in the manner known to law, and the forensic report supported the prosecution’s case. As the Court observed, “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.” The medical evidence further corroborated the eyewitness accounts, as the post-mortem report indicated that the death was due to a chop wound over the neck. As the court stated, “He has indicated the cause of death as “haemorrhagic shock due to chop wound over neck”. The same would indicate that it was a homicidal death.”

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony, if consistent and credible, can be sufficient to uphold a conviction, even with minor discrepancies.
• The recovery of a murder weapon, along with forensic evidence, can be crucial in establishing guilt.
• Concurrent findings by lower courts strengthen the case for conviction.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for murder can be upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimony, the recovery of the murder weapon, and supporting medical evidence. The judgment reinforces the importance of considering the totality of evidence and not dismissing witness accounts based on minor discrepancies. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimony, the recovery of the weapon, and the medical report, was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the importance of consistent and credible eyewitness accounts and the significance of forensic evidence in criminal cases.