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

2014 Supreme(Bom) 1473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
Sanjay Hari Phondake
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2012
Decided On: 28th July, 2014

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. ARFAN SAIT, Adv. appointed for the Appellant.
Smt. V.R. BHONSALE, Addl. P.P. for the Respondent - State.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300 and 304, Part II - Murder or culpable homicide - Conviction. - It was alleged that accused assaulted his father with stone on account of which he died. Here assault was not made with premeditation or preplan and therefore accused was convicted under Section 304, Part I and nor under Section 302, IPC.

JUDGMENT

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

The Appellant/original accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th March 2012 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, Oros in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2011. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of his father Hari and under Section 323 for causing injuries to his mother Taramati. For the offence under Section 302, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and for the offence under Section 323 the Appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :

The Appellant was the son of Hari and P.W.10 - Taramati. Hari is the deceased in the present case. Earlier the Appellant, deceased Hari and his wife Taramati were all residing at Ramwadi. However, on account of quarrels between Hari and the Appellant, Hari and his wife Taramati started residing at Khindicha Mal and the Appellant with his wife and children continued to reside at Ramwadi. Prior to the incident the Appellant asked his mother Taramati to give him money by selling ancestral land. Taramati informed this fact to her husband Hari. However, Hari was opposed to the said idea. The incident occurred on 21st November 2010. At about 4 p.m. the Appellant came to Khindicha Mal. At that time deceased Hari had gone to fetch water. In the meanwhile, P.W.8 Punam who was the daughter of the Appellant came there and was sitting with Taramati. The Appellant came to the spot and asked Taramati about his father. The Appellant saw his father standing in Khale. Khale is a place where rice is threshed. The Appellant then dragged Taramati from the cattle shed and asked her to stand in Khale, adjacent to Hari. Then a quarrel took place between the Appellant and his father Hari. Taramati asked P.W.8 - Punam to go home and tell about the incident to her mother i.e. P.W.7 - Sanjivani. Hence, Punam left to tell her mother about the incident. The Appellant then gave fist blows to his father Hari. Hari fell on the ground. Taramati tried to separate the Appellant and Hari. The Appellant kicked Taramati due to which Taramati fell down. Almost all the bangles of Taramati were broken. Taramati then called P.W.1 - Chandrakant for help. Chandrakant came to the spot. Chandrakant saw the incident and he went to call villagers. At that time the Appellant lifted a stone from nearby and gave blow with it on the head of Hari. This incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. Thereafter Hari was taken to the hospital. Hari expired at 8.30 p.m. P.W.1 - Chandrakant lodged FIR, Exhibit 10. Thereafter investigation commenced. The Appellant was arrested. The dead body of Hari was sent for postmortem. P.W.12 - Dr. Makandar examined Hari. On examination he found the following injuries on the person of Hari :

"1. Contused lacerated wound over occipital region of scalp with fracture of occipital bone. Bleeding present."

During postmortem it was found that the cause of death was hemorrhage shock with intracranial hemorrhage. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. Charge came to be framed against the Appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of denial. His further defence is that the incident occurred during the course of a sudden quarrel. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the Learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this Appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Sait, learned advocate for the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered the submissions, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of






















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top