Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4664 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13920 of 2024]
Decided On : 20-11-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Life sentence – Prosecution case is supported by wife of deceased – No error in finding of trial court and High Court that it is present appellant who assaulted deceased due to which death of deceased occurred – No motive has come on record as to why appellant wanted to commit murder of deceased – Evidence of eyewitnesses also does not show that appellant had come with any weapon – Medical evidence would show that injuries caused are with bamboo stick which is commonly available in a village – Possibility of deceased following appellant and altercation taking place between them and in a sudden fight in heat of passion appellant assaulting deceased cannot be ruled out – Nature of injuries sustained by deceased would also not show that appellant had taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC and sentence modified to period already undergone (more than 12 years). (Paras 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of final judgment and order dated 5th August, 2020, passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 927 of 2015, whereby High Court has negatived challenge to the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2015, passed by Trial Court, thereby upholding conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imposition of sentence to suffer imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 500/- on the appellant.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has already undergone actual imprisonment for a period of more than 9 years and with remission he has undergone sentence of more than 12 years prior to his release on bail by order of this Court dated 4th October 2024. Said sentence would subserve ends of justice.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 5th August, 2020, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter, “High Court”), in Criminal Appeal No. 927 of 2015, whereby the High Court has negatived the challenge to the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2015, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge – 3, at Satara (hereinafter, “trial court”), in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2014, thereby upholding the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) and the imposition of sentence to suffer imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 500/- on the appellant.
3. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has called into question the dismissal of his Criminal Appeal by the High Court.
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as given below.
4.1 The prosecution story is that on 21st March 2014, Sunita Bhosale (PW-6) and her husband Gopal Bhosale went to the house of Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5). At that moment, Rajendra Bhosale had gone to answer nature’s call. Sunita Bhosale (PW-6) and her husband were having a conversation with Chayya – wife of Rajendra Bhosale (PW- 5). At about 10:30 PM, Sunny @ Santosh (appellant) came in front of the house of Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5) and started abusing Chayya and Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5) on account of a loan they had taken. When Chayya tried to pacify the appellant, he attempted to assault her. Seeing this, Gopal Bhosale intervened and requested the appellant not to use abusive language and that his grievance could be resolved the next day. The appellant went some distance away from the house of Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5) but then suddenly started abusing Gopal Bhosale in filthy language and called him out of the house in a threatening tone. Gopal Bhosale went out of the house and followed the appellant towards the Northern side of tar road leading towards Khadkoba Temple in the village. It is then that the appellant beat and assaulted Gopal Bhosale particularly on his face and head by means of a bamboo stick causing bleeding injuries. Mangesh Bhosale (PW-3) and Aniket Bhosale (not examined), upon hearing the sound of quarrel so also Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5) who was informed by Sunita Bhosale (PW-6) and his wife Chayya, rushed towards the spot and saw the appellant assaulting Gopal Bhosale by means of a bamboo stick and the injured lying on the ground. Seeing the three of them, the appellant ran away from there. Other people including Sharad Bhosale (PW-4) gathered at the spot. The injured Gopal Bhosale was taken to the Rural Hospital, Khandala, where the doctor declared him brought dead.
4.2 Sharad Bhosale (PW-4) lodged the First Information Report being FIR No. 54 of 2014 at Police Station Khandala, District Satara, on the intervening night of 21st March 2014 and 22nd March 2014 at around 1:35 AM. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC.
4.3 Investigating Officer Ashok Shelke (PW-10) conducted the investigation. After preparing the inquest panchnama, the dead body was sent for postmortem. The appellant was arrested. The blood-stained clothes of the appellant were seized by preparing a panchnama. While in police custody, the disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded and at his instance muddemal i.e., bamboo stick was seized under panchnama. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of witnesses. He sent blood-stained clothes, bamboo stick, etc., for chemical analysis.
4.4 The Investigating Officer, upon completion of the investigation, filed a chargesheet forwarding the appellant to face the trial. The case was committed to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
4.5 The trial court, upon hearing, framed charge against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be t
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC (Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023).
(1) Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.(2) Merely because witnesses are relatives, cannot be a ground to discard testimony of such witnesses – Only requirement is that test....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, leading to a conviction under Section 304 (Part-II) instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
The court determined that the appellant's actions were provoked, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302, emphasizing the absence of premeditation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the injury, the presence of a motive prior to the incident, and the absence of provocation are crucial factors in determining th....
Murder – Unintentional homicide do not come within ambit of Section 302 of IPC.
Murder – Plea of exercise of right of private defence cannot be sustained in isolation.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
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
