Police Have No Power To Probe Or File Chargesheet Under PCPNDT Act: Supreme Court Rules Cognizance Bar Absolute 'Cannot Claim Pension Scheme Post-Retirement After Accepting CPF Benefits': Supreme Court Rules Regularisation Doesn't Relate Back To Initial Appointment 'Offence Within Four Corners Of Room Not In Public View': Supreme Court Quashes SCST Act Charges Against School Manager Give A Dog A Bad Name And Hang Him: Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act Cases; Rules Punishing Mere Status Violates Article 20(1) Child Of Tender Age Easy Prey To Tutoring: Supreme Court Quashes Double Murder Conviction Based On Solitary Child Witness 'State Cannot Supplant PSC's Role By Conducting Exhaustive Eligibility Enquiry': Supreme Court Limits Executive Power In Post-Selection Document Verification Revenue Entry Neither Creates Nor Extinguishes Title: Supreme Court Holds Limitation Against Co-Owner Cannot Run Without Open And Unequivocal Ouster 125 CrPC | Obligation To Maintain Children Cannot Be Divided By Arithmetic Alone': Supreme Court Rules Mother's Income No Ground To Halve Father's Liability 'Scramble For Possession': Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Advocate Receiver Amid Clash Between Consent Decree Execution & Gujarat Tenancy Act Claims 'Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Medical Evidence Flaws Expose 'Eye-Witness' Lies Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Remand Extension Granted Without Notice To Accused, Grants Default Bail 167(2) CRPC No Violation Of Natural Justice If Borrower Fails To Produce Records Or Seek Personal Hearing: Calcutta High Court Upholds Bank's 'Fraud' Account Classification Cannot Exploit Entire Land's FAR For New Tower Once OC Is Issued Without Flat Owners' Consent: Karnataka High Court Mandates TDR Purchase Brethren Assembly Hall Is A 'Church' Under Foreign Liquor Rules, Bar Hotel Cannot Function Within Prohibited Distance: Kerala High Court Fence-Sitters Cannot Claim Arrears After Inordinate Delay, But Entitled To Notional Fixation For Pension: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes At The Foundation Of Institutional Integrity: Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Medical PG Admission Fraud 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