The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

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

Similar News