Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

Presence Itself is Sufficient for Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case

29 August 2024 11:04 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Suresh Dattu Bhojane, Satish Rama Bhojane, and Anna Maruti Bhojane in a high-profile murder case. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, emphasizes the principle of collective responsibility in unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC, reinforcing the convictions handed down by both the trial court and the High Court.

The case revolves around the fatal assault on Mohan Mungase on February 6, 1999, at the residence of Mama Bhojane in Village Borale. The motive stemmed from a dispute over the management of a country liquor shop, previously handled by the accused Dhondappa (A-1) and subsequently entrusted to the deceased and his brother, Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5). On the day of the incident, the accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked Mohan Mungase, resulting in his death and injuries to Nandkumar and Maruti Nakate (PW-7).

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies of key eyewitnesses, including Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5), Savita (PW-4), and police constable Mahadeo (PW-9). The Supreme Court noted that their statements were consistent and credible, detailing the sequence of events and the active roles of the accused.

Justice Mithal emphasized the legal principle that even if specific roles were not assigned to some accused, their presence and involvement in the unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder sufficed for conviction under Section 149 IPC. "The assembly of all the accused persons in the house of Mama Bhojane with deadly weapons was clearly for the purpose of teaching a lesson to the deceased," the judgment noted.

The court discussed the applicability of Section 149 IPC, which holds every member of an unlawful assembly criminally liable for acts committed in pursuance of the common object. Despite A-5 and A-6 not being individually armed, their presence and actions during the crime underscored their collective intent.

Justice Mithal remarked, "Their presence with the other co-accused amounted to an unlawful assembly which is sufficient for conviction, even if they may have not actively participated in the commission of the crime."

The Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeals underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law in cases involving unlawful assembly and collective criminal responsibility. By affirming the lower courts' findings, this judgment reinforces the legal framework for prosecuting crimes involving multiple offenders acting with a common intent. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on future cases involving group assaults and collective violence.

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

Suresh Dattu Bhojane & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra

Latest Legal News