Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Laxman Chandar Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2001
Decided On : 15.12.2015
Section 302 - Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's case under Section 302 of the IPC but convicted the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence and reliability of the witness's testimony, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was initially charged under Section 302 of the IPC but was convicted only under Section 323 of the IPC based on the prosecution's case that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by giving him a dig with his elbow. The appellant's defense claimed that the deceased fell and died while climbing down a parapet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of the sole witness, was unreliable and contradictory. The court also noted the improbability of the alleged assault and the lack of corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the witness's testimony, the probability of the alleged assault, and the lack of corroboration for the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reliable evidence and corroboration in criminal cases, especially when relying on the testimony of a solitary witness. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing the probability of the alleged events beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, ordering the discharge of his bail bonds and the refund of any paid fine.
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
1. The appellant was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Sessions Judge, Nashik, after holding a trial, found him guilty only of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. He, therefore, acquitted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted him only of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge imposed a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and a fine of Rs. 100/- on the appellant. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal.
2. The State of Maharashtra has not filed any appeal or any other proceedings before any court challenging the order of acquittal of the appellant with respect to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and his conviction only in respect of a lesser offence.
3. The prosecution case, as can be gathered from the police report and accompanying documents, and as was put forth before the trial court, be stated thus:-
One Lahanu Govind Mahale (deceased) was residing in the neighbourhood of the appellant. On 1st November 1998 at about 7.00 p.m. Lahanu after having consumed liquor was talking incoherently. That, at that time, the appellant, to tease and ridicule the said Lahanu, said that, as he (Lahanu) had no child, it would only they (the appellant and others) who would dig a pit for him after his death. Lahanu, indeed had no child, though he had two wives. He was, therefore, hurt by this remark and angrily went towards the house of the appellant situated just near the house of Lahanu. The appellant, who was taking a bath in his house, came out and gave a dig to Lahanu by the right elbow. This blow fell on the chest of Lahanu, who, on receiving the same, fell on the ground. Lahanu, however, got up, walked towards his house situate just by the side, and sat on the parapet. Taibai and Laxmibai the two wives of Lahanu, had seen the incident. The appellant's mother and father took Taibai and Laxmibai to the Police Patil, who said that he was not well, and that, he would look into the matter in the morning. Taibai came back to her house and saw that her husband Lahanu had already passed away. With the help of Laxmibai, Taibai lifted Lahanu's body and brought in the veranda. On the next day morning, Taibai (PW2) went to the Police station and lodged a report. This was recorded by Sampat Jadhav (PW7) who was the Station House Officer at Harsul Police Station. By treating the said report as First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit 15), a case in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was registered. PW7 Sampat Jadhav handed over the investigation to Ramesh Jadhav, Police Head Constable (PW6). Ramesh Jadhav went to the house of Taibai. He saw the dead body of Lahanu which was pointed out by Taibai. Inquest panchnama (Exhibit 12) was drawn. Spot panchnama (Exhibit 13) was also drawn. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination.
4. PW6 Police Head Constable Ramesh Jadhav recorded the statement of the second wife of Lahanu and five other persons. The appellant was brought to the police station and arrested at 21.30 hours. On the next day, i.e. 3rd November 1998, Ramesh Jadhav recorded the statements of some more persons. On 7th November 1998, report in respect of the postmortem examination on the dead body was received.
5. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant, who, as aforesaid, was prosecuted in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, but was convicted only of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.
6. The prosecution examined seven witnesses during the trial. The first witness Laxman Mahale is a panch in respect of the Inquest panchnama (Exhibit 12) and the Spot panchnama (Exhi
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
