Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Premchand - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Explanations that accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with evidence adduced by prosecution – No conviction can be premised solely on the basis of Section 313 statement(s) – Statements of accused in course of examination under Section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under Section 3 of Evidence Act, yet, answers given are relevant for finding truth and examining veracity of prosecution case – Statement(s) of accused cannot be dissected to rely on inculpatory part and ignore exculpatory part and has/have to be read in whole, inter alia, to test authenticity of exculpatory nature of admission – Any failure to consider accused’s explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate trial and/or endanger conviction – It is optional for accused to explain circumstances put to him under Section 313, but safeguard provided by it and valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of exercise rather than its futility. (Paras 15 and 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Sudden quarrel – Though there is no specific admission by appellant that he had stabbed victim or other injured witnesses, contents of admission does evince an act of retaliation spurred by sudden provocation resulting in a quarrel as well as a scuffle which ultimately cost victim his life and left some others injured – Appellant too sustained injuries in scuffle – While victim was middle-aged, appellant was in his late fifties – Trial court lacked in objectivity by not examining facts and circumstances as to whether situation was such as is likely to reasonably cause an apprehension in mind of appellant that there was imminent danger to his body, of either death or grievous hurt being caused to him, if he did not act in private defence – To impute intention to cause death or intention to cause that particular injury which proved fatal, in these circumstances seems to be unreasonable – This is not a case where appellant could be convicted for murder of victim – Appellant was entitled to benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC – Conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentence reduced to period of nine years already undergone. (Paras 23, 25 to 29)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the judgment and order dated 06th August, 2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, whereby Criminal Appeal No 211 of 2016 carried by the appellant assailing his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.6,000.00 and a default sentence of one year as well as sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.4,000.00 for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
This is a case where the police should have investigated the injuries suffered by appellant too. The appellant also did not pursue any available remedy to right wrong. However, in view of little less than a decade having passed since incident took place, any direction to investigate at this distance of time may not yield any fruitful result.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, calls in question the judgment and order dated 06th August, 2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, whereby Criminal Appeal No 211 of 2016 carried by the appellant assailing his conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.6,000.00 and a default sentence of one year as well as sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.4,000.00 for the offence punishable under section 307, IPC was dismissed.
2. The prosecution case was that Nandkishor Korde (for brevity ‘the victim’) was murdered on 26th September, 2013 at around 5:00 pm by the appellant. The other three victims, namely Namdeo Korde (P.W.2), Vilas Charde (P.W.3), and Kunal Babhulkar (P.W.4) received stab injuries caused by a knife, also inflicted by the appellant. A report was lodged soon thereafter by the mother of the victim Rekhabai Korde, (P.W.1), leading to registration of an F.I.R. under sections 302 and 307, IPC. The post-mortem report dated 27th September, 2013 (Ext.35) recorded “stab injury to neck” of the victim as the probable cause of death.
3. Consequent to the registration of the F.I.R., Police Inspector Bharat Thakre (P.W.8) took up the investigation, visited the spot of the incident and prepared spot panchnama. He found the spot of the incident stained with blood and recovered a blood-stained knife, a wooden stick stained with blood, three pairs of chappals, two spectacles, and a blue dot pen. P.W.8 arrested the appellant and since he too had received injuries, he was referred to the Rural Hospital, Katol for his medical examination.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under sections 302 and 307, IPC was filed before the concerned court against the appellant. Upon committal, charges for the above-said offences were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses to support of its case. None was examined on behalf of the defence. However, the appellant filed a written statement, which we propose to refer to at a later part of this judgment. The Additional Sessions Judge largely relied on the statements of P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 to convict the appellant. The Court concluded that the appellant committed the murder of the victim with the knife (Art.1) and also attempted to commit the murder of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. The defence of the appellant appeared to the Court to be false and the prosecution was held to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. This was followed by the convictions and sentences, noted above.
6. The aforesaid judgment having been challenged before the High Court, the relevant Division Bench was of the view that the findings did not warrant any interference and that the appeal was devoid of any merit; hence, it was dismissed.
7. The first limb of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below clearly erred in convicting the appellant. According to him, the following points deserve consideration :
a. Firstly, the courts below failed to appreciate that none of the other persons present at the site of the occurrence, namely Shankarrao Fartode, Umrao Charde, and Ramesh Korde (as per the version of P.W.2) were examined as prosecution witnesses. The courts ought to have inferred that had they been produced they would not have supported the prosecution case and, thus, were deliberately withheld. Non-examination of such independent witnesses, therefore, should be held to be fatal to the prosecution case.
b. Secondly, having regard to the age of the appellant (he was 58 years old on the date of the incident), it is quite improbable that he could freely inflict stab injuries on the victim and the others without anyone of the injured as well as the others present at the site (Shankarrao Fartode, Umrao Charde, and Ramesh Korde) even making a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which requires the fulfillment of specific requirements to invoke the exception, such as ....
The court confirmed that repeated and severe assaults infer intent to kill, regardless of claimed provocation, thus upholding a murder conviction.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting the appellant's claims of lack of evidence and premeditation. The court dismissed the appellant's plea for a less....
(1) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
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
