Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
V.K. TAHILRAMANI & SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
Sandip Hari Karande & Others – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 224 of 2008, 242 of 2008 & 859 of 2008
Decided on : 26-06-2015
In the present case, the weapon used is a sharp edged weapon like sattur, assault made is on the vital part of body like neck. It was also not a case of a assault by single blow, but in all three blows were inflicted by accused. One fell on the right leg of PW 7, the other blow which was intended towards deceased Chandrakant was obstructed by PW 7 and hence he sustained injury on his left hand. The third blow given by accused No. 1, proved to be fatal as it was given on the vital part of body like neck. Therefore, this is not a case where a single blow is given, but it is case where three successive blows were inflicted out of which one was proved to be fatal, as the other two could be averted. In such situation, the case squarely falls under Section 302 of the IPC and no benefit of any of the Exception carved out under Section 300 of IPC can be extended to the accused.
[INDIAN] PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 300 Offence of murder. Where evidence of eye-witnesses as to incident implicating accused was cogent and consistent and corroborated by medical evidence therefore plea of false implication not tenable. The plea raised by counsel for appellant that out of political rivalry or earlier strained relations, accused are falsely implicated in the case, also cannot be accepted in the present case because of concrete and positive evidence of eye-witnesses which is supported and corroborated by the prompt FIR and medical evidence. The conviction of the accused No. 1, therefore, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is, therefore, to be upheld.
[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 99 and 300 Plea of self defence in murder case. Since alleged injuries found on accused are simpliciter and confusions and too 3 days after incident hence plea of self defence not tenable. Moreover, in the present case, the evidence on record does not show that any danger to life of accused was apprehended for accused No. 1 to rush to the spot with sharp edged weapon like sattur and to make indiscriminate assault on PW 7 and his father deceased. There is also no evidence proving that any of the prosecution witnesses or the deceased were armed with the sharp edged weapons like sattur or knife or there was any apprehension of danger to the life of accused No. 2. This is a clear case where accused No. 1 has patently and apparently made an indiscriminate assault.
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
1. All these three appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and order dated 14.2.2008 of learned Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Sessions Case No.68 of 2006, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, therefore, the parties are referred to by their original nomenclature.
2. By the impugned judgment, accused No.1 Hari is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 506 (II) of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count. Accused Nos 2 to 4 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 45 days. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, Criminal Appeal Nos 224 of 2008 and 242 of 2008 are preferred by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to 4, respectively.
3. Whereas Criminal Appeal No.859 of 2008 is preferred by the State against acquittal of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and also against acquittal of accused Nos 2 to 4 under Section 302, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC.
4. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding these appeals may be stated thus:-
P.W.8 Sangita is the wife of deceased Chandrakant and mother of P.W.7 injured Sagar. Her elder daughter Sarita is married and younger daughter Snehal is taking education. Accused Nos 2 and 3 are the sons and accused No.4 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused were running a sugar-cane juice shop in front of the house of P.W.8 Sangita. Just four months prior to the incident, accused Nos 1 to 3 had abused and assaulted P.W.7 Sagar and complaint thereof was lodged at Pandharpur Police Station. Police had taken action against accused on that count. Being annoyed due to said complaint, accused persons, as per prosecution case, used to harass P.W.8 Sangita and her family members. There used to be frequent quarrels and exchange of hot words between the two families.
5. On the date of incident i.e. 28.3.2006 at about 12.30 in the noon, when P.W.8 Sangita was standing in front of her house on the road, accused No.1 Hari and his son accused No.2 Sandip gave her abuses and threatening. Thereafter at about 2.00 p.m. when P.W.7 Sagar was returning home for lunch, accused No.1 Hari and accused No.2 Sandip threatened him also with sattur and also assaulted him by fist-blows and kicks. Witnesses by name Rajesh Chavan and Saudagar intervened and separated P.W.7 Sagar. P.W.8 Sangita, her husband deceased Chandrakant and P.W.7 Sagar, therefore, went to the police station and lodged complaint about the same to the police.
6. While they were returning from police station, at about 2.45 to 3.00 p.m. accused Nos 1 to 4, who were standing in front of their sugar-cane juice shop, again started abusing P.W.8 Sangita and her family members. Accused No.1 started assaulting deceased Chandrakant with sattur in his hand. P.W.7 Sagar intervened and hence sustained blow of sattur on his left hand. P.W.8 Sangita pulled her son P.W.7 Sagar aside. However, at that time accused No.1 Hari gave another blow of sattur which fell on the neck of deceased Chandrakant. Due to it he sustained injury and fell down in the pool of blood. Accused No.2 fell down P.W.7 Sagar and accused No.1 assaulted P.W.7 Sagar also with sattur on his right leg whereas the other co-accused assaulted P.W.7 Sagar and P.W.8 Sangita with fist blows and sticks.
7. The persons residing nearby, namely, P.W.7 Anil Babar, Mahesh, and Nitin Bajarangi tried to intervene in the incident, but they were not successful. After ass
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
