SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 622

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. Y. Eqbal, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
KUSHA LAXMAN WAGHMARE – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1414 OF 2008
Decided On : 02-09-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Assault without intention of causing death attracts section 304, Part-II and not section 302.

Headnote:Indian penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part-II – Appellant severely beating deceased by stick resulting in her death – Beating not with intention to cause death – Section 302 not attracted – Conviction under section 304 Part-II just and proper. (Para 11)

       Facts of the case:

       Appellant killed his wife Anusuya by means of wooden bar, hitting her very severely on the chest and at the back. Because of severe beating, there was internal bleeding and as a result thereof, she died.

       Trial court convicted him under Section 302, IPC.

       The conviction and the sentence was upheld by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Case does not fall u/s 302 IPC. Conviction and sentence u/s 304 Part-II would be proper and just.

       

JUDGMENT

M. Y. Eqbal, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.01.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed in Criminal Appeal No.385 of 1999, this jail appeal by special leave has been filed by the accused. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed and upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge of Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case No. 127 of 1998 and sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.

2. The allegation as per the prosecution case is that appellant killed his wife Anusuya by means of wooden bar, hitting her very severely on the chest and at the back. Because of severe beating, there was internal bleeding and as a result thereof, she died. A First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') was lodged and after usual investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’).

3. PW-1 Devram Satu Waghmare who was police Patil of village Pilosari, deposed that in his absence the appellant visited his house and made a voluntary confession to his wife PW-2 Sunita that he had killed his wife. On getting the information, PW-1 immediately reached the spot of incident and there he found the appellant sitting beside the dead body of his wife. The appellant also narrated the story to PW-1 and confessed that he killed his wife. PW-1 then telephoned the police station from where the inspector of police arrived and arrested the accused.

4. The prosecution examined PW-2 Sunita, who is wife of PW-1. She deposed that the accused-appellant came to her house and confessed that he killed his wife by assaulting her with wooden stick. The appellant further said that he came to the house of PW2 just to disclose this to her husband. PW-2 had told her husband PW-1 that the appellant came to the house.

5. Dr. Parshuram Kotekar was examined as PW-4, who conducted post mortem over dead body of the deceased. According to him, the death was caused due to intrathoracic haemorrhage due to fracture of right and left ribs with intracranial haemorrhage.

6. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the accused had not at all offered any explanation in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was the appellant who murdered his wife and accordingly convicted him under Section 302, IPC.

7. The High Court after re-appreciation of evidence and relying upon the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

8. None appears on behalf of the appellant.

9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

10. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. But the accused-appellant made extra-judicial confession before PW-1 and PW-2. No explanation was offered by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The post mortem report fully corroborates the injuries caused to the deceased by the appellant with wooden stick. All the three witnesses viz. PW1, PW-5 and PW-6, have proved the prosecution case.

11. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter and after analysing the entire evidence, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where conviction could be sustained under Section 302, IPC. The weapon used by the appellant is a wooden stick and as per the prosecution case, the deceased was severely beaten by the said stick. As a result thereof, she died. There is no cogent evidence to show that the appellant had beaten the deceased with an intention to cause her death. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II, IPC will be just and proper.

12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-II, IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imp


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top