Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A.Vaidialingam : J.M.Shelat : V.Bhargava
Sakharam
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
Case No. : 258 of 1968
Date of Decision : 4/22/69
Indian penal code, 1860 - Section 147, 307 , 148 and 301 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 421 - Sharp-Edged Weapon Stabbed Rangnath in Abdomen – Appeal Against Conviction - Whether it was a fit case where High Court should not have dismissed appeal summarily - Whether they were got up witnesses and whether their evidence was reliable - Whether that particular injury was sought to be given by appellant to Rangnath or to Kashinath in view of provisions of Section 301 of Indian Penal Code - Whether weapon used was a pen- knife, a knife, a dagger, a jambiya, or a spearhead – Held, Argument made by learned counsel was that appellant did not actually intend to stab Rangnath which should be inferred from circumstance that main grievance of appellant was against Kashinath, and that Rangnath was stabbed only by a mistake, so that it could not be held that appellant had intended to cause death of Rangnath - It may be noticed that Sessions Judge held that appellant was guilty of committing an offence of attempted murder not because he intended to cause death of Rangnath, but because evidence showed that he intended to cause such injury to Rangnath as was sufficient in die ordinary course of nature to result in his death - Inference that injury intended to be caused by appellant was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death follows from fact that appellant used a sharp-edged weapon and gave injury in abdomen which was a very vital part of body - In fact, medical evidence is that injury was a dangerous one and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature - Conviction of appellant for offence under Section 307, Indian penal code, was, therefore, fully justified - It seems to Court that absence of a definite finding is immaterial because, whatever the weapon, it was certainly one which was sharp-edged and was capable of inflicting an incised injury 1«" long, «" wide and having a depth upto peritonial cavity - Such weapon would clearly be a dangerous weapon or at least a weapon which, if used as a weapon of offence, was likely to cause death - Conviction of appellant under Section 148, Indian penal code, was also, therefore, on face of it, fully justified – Court is unable to hold that High Court committed any error in dismissing appeal summarily - Of course, it would have been better in this case if High court, when dismissing appeal, had dealt with each of points urged before it by learned counsel who represented appellant before that court separately and given reasons for holding that none of those reasons given justified course of sending for record, giving notice to State, and hearing appeal on merits - Appeal dismissed.
V. BHARGAVA, J.
(1) THIS appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment of the High court of Bombay, Nagpur bench, summarily dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant Sakharam against his conviction and sen- tences of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and 3 months R. I. for offences punishable under S. 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code respectively awarded to him in a Sessions trial by the Sessions Judge of Yeotmal. With this appellant were arrays four other persons who were convicted for an offence under Section 147, Indian penal code, only and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(2) THE prosecution case, which the Sessions Judge held to be proved, was that, on 5/09/1967, Shamrao, who was accused No. 2 with the appellant in the Sessions trial, went to the hotel of one Kashinath alias Natha, son of Dayaram, at about noon with a bottle of liquor and demanded glasses for drinking liquor inside the hotel. Kashinath as well as his servant Rangnath refused to comply with his request. Shamrao felt aggrieved, abused both of them, and gave a threat to Kashinath. Next day, on 6/09/1967; in the evening, the appellant, who was accused No. 1, Shamrao and two others went to the hotel of Kashinaths father Dayaram and abused Kashinath.in his absence. They also gave threats saying that they would cut Kashinath to pieces. Later) still in the evening at about 8.30 or 9 p. m., Kashinath happend to be near the State Bank square on Dhamangaon Road in the company of his servant Rangnath and two others persons Ramnath and Vishwanath. They were going to- wards Mahadeo Temple beyond the Post Office. Rangnath was walking ahead, while the other three were behind him at a short distance. The appellant, who was concealing himself in the shadow of a neem three, suddenly rushed out and with a sharp-edged weapon stabbed Rangnath in the abdomen. Rangnath cried aloud, whereupon his three companions Kashinath, Vishwanath and Ramnath tried to go to his rescue. The appel- lants then called out to his associates who were armed with sticks and, as a result 10 or 12 persons, including the four other accused who were arrayed with the appellant in the Sessions Trial, arrived and tried to assault the companions of Rangnath. The three companions of Rangnath ran away. Rangnath received a serious injury in the abdomen and his intestinal loops came out of that injury. The appellant and his companions ran away after inflicting this injury on Rangnath. Rangnath walked for a short distance and was then carried by two truck drivers to a hut near the cotton market. One of those drivers Vishwanath Kute informed the police on the telephone that a person was lying injured there. The police arrived with a vehicle, took Rangnath to the Main Hospital at Yeotmal where Rangnaths statement was recorded by the police Sub-Inspector. A case was registered. Rang- naths condition was serious and, hence, his dying declaration was recorded by the Taluq Magistrate. He was first examined by Dr. Bhoot and was, later, operated upon by Dr. Gogate. He remained in the hospital until the 4/10/1967 when he was discharged. The injury received by Rangnath was found by the doctors to be a dangerous one which, in their opinion, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was only fortunate that Rangnath received immediate treatment and survived.
(3) THE Sessions Judge discussed the entire prosecution evidence which was produced before him in support of this case and, believing the evidence given by the prosecution, held that the appellant was clearly guilty of an attempt to commit the murder of Rangnath and that he had also taken part in a riot while he was armed with a dangerous sharp-edged weapon. Consequently, he convicted the appellant as mentioned above. When the appellant appealed to the High court, the High court dismissed the appeal summarily. This court granted special leave to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
