Life sentences upheld in murder case involving 101 injuries; Bombay High Court rejects accuseds’ alibi evidence

The appellants—Ganesh Ashok Ughade, Santosh Ashok Ughade, Jitesh @ Bandu Sampat Murtadak and Santosh Vijay Pagare—were tried in Sessions Case No. 261 of 2017 for the murder of Kiran Nikam.

The prosecution alleged that on 18 May 2017 at approximately 10:00 p.m., the accused intercepted Kiran near Salve’s house in Nashik and assaulted him with sharp weapons, causing 101 injuries.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, convicted all four appellants under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fine.

Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the fatal assault on Kiran Nikam, principally on the basis of the eyewitness evidence?

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and recording the statements of material witnesses rendered their testimony unreliable?

Whether the alleged recovery of sickles and clothes at the instance of Santosh Ughade could be relied upon?

Whether the defence of alibi raised by Jitesh Murtadak and Santosh Pagare was established through the CCTV footage, photographs and defence witnesses?

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court required appellate interference?

The Court applied Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning murder, unlawful assembly, rioting, rioting armed with a deadly weapon, vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy.

The Court applied the principle that a conviction may rest on credible testimony of a related or interested eyewitness if the evidence is consistent, natural and corroborated by surrounding circumstances.

It also applied the principle that delay in lodging an FIR or recording a witness’s statement is not, by itself, fatal where the circumstances provide a reasonable explanation.

The Court treated electronic records as requiring compliance with the certificate requirement under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and held that material not properly proved could not establish an alibi.

The Court found Nitin Pagare to be a wholly reliable eyewitness. His presence near the scene was considered natural, his prior familiarity with the accused enabled identification, and his conduct in seeking shelter and informing the deceased’s wife was held consistent with the brutality of the assault.

The delay in registration of the FIR was not considered unexplained because Nitin accompanied the deceased to hospital and thereafter went to the police station; the FIR was registered during the same night.

Archana’s delayed statement and imperfect identification affected the weight of her evidence but did not make her wholly unreliable; her presence on the terrace and her account of the assault corroborated Nitin’s testimony.

The Court expressly rejected the recovery evidence because it was effected approximately two months after the incident and the accused was handcuffed and tied during the alleged memorandum and recovery process.

Nevertheless, the conviction was not affected because the eyewitness evidence independently established the appellants’ participation.

The alibi pleas failed because the electronic material was not properly proved under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the witnesses had not operated or maintained the devices from which the recordings originated, and the defence evidence did not establish the accused’s continuous presence at the wedding venues at the time of the murder.

The recovery evidence was disregarded, but its exclusion did not undermine the prosecution case.

The alibi pleas were rejected for want of properly proved electronic evidence and reliable supporting testimony.

Accordingly, the convictions under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149, and Section 120B of the IPC, and the sentences of life imprisonment with fine, were affirmed.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 701 of 2023, 762 of 2023 and 1254 of 2023 were dismissed.