Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 2471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V. K. Tahilramani and A. R. Joshi, JJ.
LAVESH RAMCHANDRA JADHAV – Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondents
Cri. Appeal Nos. 1160 and 1161 of 2012
Decided On : 18-09-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Prashant Patil, Hrishikesh Giri
For the Respondent: Mrs. A. S. Pai
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the appellants' intention and role in the assault, leading to the dilution of the offence from section 302 to section 326 of Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, section 302, section 34, section 452 - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the appellants were not armed with any deadly weapon and their role was only to assist the main accused juvenile offender for assault on the victim. The court concluded that there was no intention to kill the victim but only to teach him a lesson, leading to a dilution of the offence to section 326 of Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the assault and subsequent death of the victim by the appellants and a juvenile offender. The prosecution's case was based on the assault inflicted on the victim due to an earlier instance where the victim had assaulted the juvenile offender.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' role was only to facilitate the assault and that there was no intention to kill the victim. As a result, the court diluted the offence to section 326 of Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues raised included the credibility of the prosecution witness, recovery of weapons, and the timing of the First Information Report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the evidence, including the witness testimony and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. The court concluded that there was no intention to kill the victim but only to teach him a lesson.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, bringing down the conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code to section 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years each for the said offence, and the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under section 452 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code was sustained.
A. R. JOSHI, J.
Heard rival submissions on both these criminal appeals respectively preferred by the original accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 challenging the judgment and order of their conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. As in both the Criminal Appeals, the same judgment and order is challenged, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 29-3-2012 both the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer SI for six months each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 452 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer RI for five years each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer further SI for six months each.
3. At the threshold it must be mentioned that one more juvenile accused was tried separately by the Special Juvenile Court and we are concerned with the present appeals preferred by these original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as they were so mentioned in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2011.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant (PW-2) one Smt. Chayya Narkar was residing along with her husband, an auto-rickshaw driver, in a chawl owned by PW-1 the landlady one Aasama Bagwan. Husband of said Chayya Narkar is the victim who died in the assault inflicted on him in the morning of 6-7-2011. The victim was addicted to consuming liquor to such an extent that even at the starting of the day he used to take liquor. Apparently due to this habit, his wife (PW-2) was doing some work as a maid-servant. According to the case of prosecution, on 4-7-2011 there was some earlier instance during which the juvenile offender a boy was assaulted by the victim and to that effect some complaint came to be lodged by the said boy. Apparently this was the motive for the said juvenile boy and the present appellants to assault and do away with the victim in the morning of 6-7-2011.
5. On the fateful day i.e. on 6-7-2011 when the complainant (PW-2) and her husband victim were at home and when apparently the victim was under the influence of alcohol and lying on the ground in a 10 ft. X 10 ft. single room, both the appellants in association with the juvenile offender entered the house and started manhandling the victim which was apparently on account of the earlier assault by the victim on the juvenile offender. During that episode, the juvenile offender went out of the house and procured some flooring tiles and by means of said tiles he assaulted the victim on his head when victim was sleeping on the ground. By that time, both hands of the victim were caught hold of by the appellant/accused No. 1 Laxman Bawadhane. That time, the appellant/accused No. 2 Lavesh Jadhav who is maternal uncle of the juvenile offender put his leg on the chest of the victim. As such, the role attributed to both the appellants is that of assisting the juvenile offender in assaulting the victim on his head by means of the flooring tiles. This incident was witnessed by the first informant (PW-2) as she was at home. After the incident of assault, the appellants and the juvenile offender left the spot leaving the victim in a pool of blood on the ground in the room. The clothes of the victim were smeared with blood. According to the first informant, wife of the victim, one neighbouring lady went and called the landlady of the said chawl. Said landlady PW-1 came to the house of the victim and noticed the situation and thereafter in a vehicle the victim was taken to Civil Hospital. According to the case of prosecution, though it is not so specifically brought on record during the trial, initially ADR report was registered being ADR No. 79 of 2011 as by that time the victim who was under treatment in the Government Ho
