Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1238

2009(5) Supreme 539
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Raj Kumar — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1233 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5482 of 2007)
Decided on : 15-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s):Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no universal rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted resulting into death of the victim, the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 498A – Prosecution of appellant for causing death of deceased, his wife by inflicting injuries on his head by means of an iron Polpat, – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – No case of appellant that deceased had died because of self-inflicted injuries or that injuries sustained by her were accidental or suicidal – In both dying declarations it was stated by deceased that because she had refused to withdraw maintenance proceedings initiated by her against appellant, appellant had entered her room and inflicted blow on her head with a stick – Testimony of child witness recorded before Sessions Court also showed that appellant was person who had inflicted injury on head of deceased – No grave and sudden provocation was offered by deceased at all – Hence it was wrong to suggest that appellant was deprived of power of self control – Both the Courts below were justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC – Facts of the case clearly indicated that the so called provocation was sought by the appellant himself as an excuse for killing his wife and, hence, appellant was not entitled to benefit of provisions of ‘Exception 1’ to Section 300 IPC – Offence committed by the appellant held liable to be punishable as murder under Section 302 IPC as his case not fell under first part or the second part of Section 304 IPC – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 6, 9 to 11)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Appellant was convicted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased, his wife by inflicting injuries on his head by means of an iron Polpat. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        No case of appellant that deceased had died because of self-inflicted injuries or that injuries sustained by her were accidental or suicidal. In both dying declarations it was stated by deceased that because she had refused to withdraw maintenance proceedings initiated by her against appellant, appellant had entered her room and inflicted blow on her head with a stick. Testimony of child witness recorded before Sessions Court also showed that appellant was person who had inflicted injury on head of deceased. No grave and sudden provocation was offered by deceased at all .Hence it was wrong to suggest that appellant was deprived of power of self control .Both the Courts below were justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Facts of the case clearly indicated that the so called provocation was sought by the appellant himself as an excuse for killing his wife and, hence, appellant was not entitled to benefit of provisions of ‘Exception 1’ to Section 300 IPC. Offence committed by the appellant was held liable to be punishable as murder under Section 302 IPC as his case not fell under first part or the second part of Section 304 IPC. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Panchal, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has challenged judgment dated September 25, 2006, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2002 by which decision dated February 21, 2002, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1995 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 as well as R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A, is confirmed.

3. From the record of the case following facts emerge. The appellant was married to deceased Pramila. The incident in question took place on November 12, 1994. During the subsistence of marriage the deceased gave birth to a boy named Sangam. The appellant used to ill-treat the deceased. Therefore, her brother Ishwar Sambhaji Kahire brought her to Village Belora. A compromise took place and, therefore, the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home. However, thereafter also the appellant continued to ill-treat the deceased.

Therefore, her brother again brought her back to Village Belora. As the deceased had no means to sustain herself and her son, she had filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for obtaining maintenance from the appellant. The brother of the deceased took a room on rent for the deceased and her son at Wani belonging to one Dadaji Shankar Ganfade. The deceased and her son aged four years were residing in the said rented room and the boy was taking education. After about one and a half months the appellant started visiting the deceased and pressurizing her to withdraw the proceedings initiated for getting maintenance.

On November 11, 1994, the appellant went to the room of the deceased in the evening time from his village Lalguda and asked the deceased to withdraw the maintenance proceedings. However, as the deceased had no means to maintain herself and her son, she refused to withdraw the proceedings. Again on November 12, 1994 at about 4.00 A.M. in the morning the appellant went to the room of the deceased. At that time the deceased and her son Sangam were sleeping. The appellant came there under the influence of liquor. On door being knocked by the appellant, the deceased opened the door and that is how the appellant entered the room occupied by the deceased. On entering the room the appellant pressed the neck of the deceased but the deceased got herself released from the clutches of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant took up an iron Polpat, i.e., Stone Rolling Pad and inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased. Because of the injury sustained by her, the deceased started bleeding. The appellant took some amount lying in the room and ran away. The son of the deceased started weeping loudly. His cries attracted the attention of the landlord Dadaji Shankar Ganfade. Dadaji in turn woke up his wife and other tenants and rushed to the room occupied by the deceased. On entering the room, he found that the deceased was lying injured seriously. On enquiry being made, the deceased told him and other tenants that as she had refused to withdraw the maintenance proceedings, her husband had inflicted blow on her head with a stick. The landlord of the house and other tenants immediately shifted the deceased to Wani Hospital. The Medical Officer, who was in-charge of Rural Hospital, Wani, sent an intimation to the Police Station, Wani at about 5.00 A.M. that one woman named Pramila was admitted in the hospital in an injured condition. The P.S.O., Wani Police Station, sent a requisition to the Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration of the deceased in the very morning itself. On receipt of the requisition, the Executive Magistrate went

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1238

2009(5) Supreme 539SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.Raj Kumar — AppellantversusState of Maharashtra — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1233 of 2009(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5482 of 2007)Decided on : 15-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT There is no universal rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted resulting into death of the victim, the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC.

2009(5) Supreme 539
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Raj Kumar — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1233 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5482 of 2007)
Decided on : 15-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no universal rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted resulting into death of the victim, the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC.