Video evidence and dying declarations corroborated by eyewitness testimony sustain convictions for murder and attempted murder.

On January 21, 2018, Vaibhav Kawadkar (PW-5), accompanied by his friends Amol Atalkar (deceased) and Tilak @ Ilu Hate (PW-2), visited Mohgaon Bhadade to discuss a field property dispute with his uncles, Balaji and Chandrabhan Kawadkar (Appellants).

The Appellants assaulted the trio with a stick and an axe.

Amol died from head injuries; Vaibhav sustained grave injuries, and Tilak suffered minor hurts.

The Trial Court (Addl. Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur) convicted the Appellants under Sections 302, 307, and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of alibi and lack of specific identification in video evidence.

1. Whether the death of Amol Ramesh Atalkar was homicidal in nature?

2. Whether the Appellants, in furtherance of common intention, committed the murder of Amol and attempted the murder of Vaibhav?

3. Whether the ocular evidence of PW-2 and electronic evidence (video clips) are sufficient to sustain the conviction despite PW-5 turning hostile?

4. Whether criminal proceedings for perjury should be initiated against PW-5 for giving false evidence?

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), and Section 323 (Voluntary causing hurt) of the IPC, read with Section 34 regarding common intention.

It relied on Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for the admissibility of electronic records (video clips of dying declarations/spot inquiries).

The Court followed the doctrine from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab regarding sentencing and Perumal v. Janaki (2014) regarding the High Court's duty to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC to preserve judicial purity.

The Court affirmed the homicidal nature of death based on the postmortem report showing a depressed skull fracture.

Although the injured victim (PW-5) turned hostile by refusing to name his uncles in court, the Court relied on his previous statements under Section 164 CrPC and, crucially, two video clips recorded at the scene by the police.

These clips, certified under Section 65-B, captured PW-5 and the deceased naming the Appellants as the assailants immediately after the attack.

The Court also integrated the testimony of PW-4 (wife of deceased), who received a phone call from the deceased naming the Appellants.

The recovery of the blood-stained axe and stick at the instance of the Appellants, coupled with C.A. reports matching the victims' blood groups, established a complete chain of evidence.

The common intention was inferred from the prior property dispute and the coordinated nature of the armed assault.

The Court held that the electronic evidence and ocular testimony of PW-2 were unimpeachable.

Additionally, the Court invoked Section 340 CrPC, directing the Assistant Registrar to file a formal perjury complaint against PW-5 (Vaibhav Kawadkar) for intentionally giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding to protect his relatives.