Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 652
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Santlal Shrikisan Kutil @ Kaalia @ Mochi - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3019 of 2017)
Decided On : 08-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jogy Scaria
For the Respondent: Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder under Section 302, IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II, IPC based on the nature of the incident and the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Dying Declaration - Criminal Law - The court found that the prosecution proved the occurrence of the incident, but on careful scrutiny of the evidence, it concluded that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant's conviction under Section 302, IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II, IPC and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and the deceased, common friends, had an altercation over sharing of liquor, resulting in the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased with a stone. The deceased succumbed to the injuries after seven days of treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II, IPC and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions amounted to murder under Section 302, IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II, IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the altercation, the relationship between the accused and the victim, and the time gap between the injuries and the victim's death to conclude that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302, IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II, IPC and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
-
The case involves a distinction between murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, based on the nature of the incident and the evidence presented [judgement_subject].
-
The incident arose from an altercation between the appellant and the deceased over sharing liquor, which resulted in injuries inflicted with a stone. The deceased succumbed after seven days of treatment [fact_of_the_case].
-
The prosecution proved the occurrence of the incident but the evidence indicated that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder. The court found that the appellant's actions did not meet the criteria for murder under Section 302, IPC [finding_of_the_court].
-
The appellant's conviction under Section 302, IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II, IPC, with a sentence of seven years imprisonment. The court emphasized the nature of the altercation, the relationship between the accused and the victim, and the time gap between injuries and death as factors for this decision [final_decision].
-
The court scrutinized the reliability of the evidence, including the alleged dying declaration, which was not recorded in accordance with legal principles, and the absence of eyewitnesses. It also noted delays in recording statements and the lack of expert analysis on blood samples and weapon recovery [arguments].
-
The court observed that the injuries were serious but did not cause immediate death, and the deceased's death after a period of treatment indicated that the incident did not amount to murder. The appellant and the deceased had a history of casual altercations and shared sleeping arrangements, suggesting no inimical relationship at the time of the incident [analysis].
-
The appeal was partly allowed, with the conviction under Section 302, IPC being set aside and substituted with a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, IPC. The sentence was upheld, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the period of custody already undergone [order].
-
The court maintained that the condition of fine imposed by the lower courts remained unchanged, and the appellant was entitled to a set-off for the period of custody during trial [final_order].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and final order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 740 of 2011.
3. The background facts in brief as emerged from the prosecution case are that the appellant herein and the deceased Jayram Khapre are common friends to Prakash Jadhav (PW8) and Tukram Bhostekar (PW6). All these persons, being labourers, were in the habit of drinking together at a place called Teen Batti on regular basis and the appellant and deceased had a common place on footpath for sleeping in the night. In the evening of 19th July, 2011, when they assembled as usual, an altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased over sharing of liquor. On the next day morning, PWs 6 and 8 saw the deceased in a severely injured condition at his sleeping place and the deceased informed them that it was the appellant who inflicted injuries on him with a stone. On the complaint of PW 1 (wife of the victim), PW4 – Nandkumar, ASI reached the spot, took statement of the victim and shifted him to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 26.7.2011. Meanwhile, carrying out usual formalities, police registered Crime No. 47 of 2011 against the accused-appellant and arrested him. Recoveries of stone (alleged weapon) and clothes were made at the instance of the accused and charges were framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Subsequently, the appeal of the accused before the High Court also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the view taken by the Courts below, the accused-appellant is before us by way of this appeal.
5. At the time of admission of this appeal, we issued notice limited to the question as to whether the offence is within the scope of Section 304 (ii), IPC. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the parties in that perspective and perused the material available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that there were material irregularities on the part of prosecution and the so called dying declaration in this case cannot be relied on as it was not a dying declaration recorded in accordance with the enshrined principles of law. Despite there was adequate time, the Investigating Officer did not make an attempt to record the statement of victim in presence of jurisdictional Magistrate. Fitness certificate of the victim was obtained from the Doctor after the preparation of alleged dying declaration. There was no expert chemical analysis of the blood group of the deceased so as to match the same with the blood found on the alleged weapon (stone) and smeared clothes. Even the alleged recoveries of bloodstained clothes and stone were made after a considerable long time. He further argued that there was no eyewitness to the alleged incident and the appellant was charged with the offence only on the basis of scuffle between the appellant and the victim occurred on the previous day and there was not even complete chain of circumstances to fasten the alleged crime to the appellant. Learned counsel finally submitted that the Courts below have committed a grave error in convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC by overlooking the material discrepancies in the prosecution case and hence, the judgments of lower Courts should be set aside.
7. We have examined the factual aspect of the case and noticed that occasional altercations between the accused and the victim are common in their routine life. After scuffles, again they used to sit and drink together and share the place for their night sleep. It appears that
