Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.L. ACHLIYA, J.
Murlidhar @ Murlya S/o Gangaram Pawara - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2016
Decided On : 19-10-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. P.B. Patil.
For the Respondent/State: Mr. A.V. Deshmukh.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304, 324 and 326-Culpable homicide or grievous hurt.- Accused assaulting victim-his father by sickle, resulting into his death, liable to be convicted under Section 326, IPC of causing grievous hurt.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the act in question can be termed as an act of voluntarily causing hurt punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. As discussed, the injury No. 3 found on the body of the deceased, found to be grievous hurt which has resulted into his death. It was caused by means of sickle which is used for cutting. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the act in question of the accused can be termed as an act of voluntarily causing hurt to be punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 and 326-Culpable homicide or grievous hurt.-Since intention of accused showing that he intended to endanger life of victim and not to cause his death hence accused liable to be convicted under Section 326, IPC.
It is evident from the testimony of doctor and the injuries as reflected in the post-mortem report that the injury No. 3 was dealt with full force, resulted into chop wound of dimension 10 c.m. x 5 x 6 c.m., which resulted into cut of femur bone through and through as well as veins and arteries supplying blood to heart were cut due to said injury. Therefore, the act of accused can very well be termed as an act of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of dangerous weapon like sickle which has endangered the life of the deceased and resulted into his death. In this view, though it can be stated that the act of the accused cannot be termed as a culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, but certainly the act in question can be termed as voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of dangerous weapon i.e. sickle used for cutting and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 and 326-Culpable homicide or grievous hurt.-Where death is likely to be caused, offence can be culpable homicide and if injury caused only to endanger life, it would be grievous hurt.
The line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous hurt is very thin. If death is likely to be caused, it could be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and if injuries caused only endanger the life it would be termed as grievous hurt and injuries said to be grievous when it puts the life of injured in danger.
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment & Order dated 10.08.2015 in Sessions Case No. 173/2014 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule whereby the appellant held guilty of offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of appeal are summarized as under :
(a) On 13.07.2014, Ratilal Gangaram Pawara (PW3) resident of Bhoiti, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule lodged complaint with Police Station Shirpur alleging therein that on 11.7.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., while his father Gangaram Pawara was weaving rope of cot in the courtyard of their house and his mother Sahabai, brother Shantaram (PW4) and Tukaram were helping him in weaving of rope of cot, at that time the accused came there in a drunken condition and demanded money to his father for consuming liquor. His father refused to pay money and asked him to go away. The accused insisted to pay money and said that he would not leave the place without taking money and started to give abuses to his father. His father asked the accused in enraged condition as to whether he is going from that place or not. Thereon, the accused lifted sickle lying there, which his father was using for weaving cot and inflicted blow over the cheek and left leg of his father and ran away from the spot leaving the sickle on the spot. The assault made resulted into causing severe injuries to his father. Initially he was taken to Hospital at Shirpur. Later on shifted to Civil Hospital at Dhule. Deceased succumbed to injuries at about 11:00 p.m., while undergoing treatment at Civil Hospital, Dhule. On 12.07.2014, the dead body of deceased brought to his village where last rites were performed. On next day i.e. 13.07.2014, Ratilal (PW3) lodged report in respect of incident dt. 11.07.2014.
(b) On the basis of the report lodged by Ratilal (PW3)(Exh. 48), the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered with Police Station Shirpur vide C.R. No. 151/2014 as against the appellant/accused. P.S.I. Raufkhan Hurmatkhan Pathan (PW6) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot of incident and prepared panchanama of scene of offence vide Exh. 10. At the time of drawing spot panchanama, the complainant (PW3) produced the sickle (Article No. 3) which was used in commission of offence by the accused which was seized. Statements of the witnesses such as Shantaram Pawara (PW4), Magan Pawara (PW5) and other witnesses were recorded. The inquest panchanama as well as clothes of the deceased were seized by the Police Station Dhule, while the deceased was lying admitted and died in the Hospital on 11.07.2014. He had taken charge of those clothes. The dead body of the deceased was referred for postmortem on 12.07.2014 by official of Police Station, Dhule. He collected those papers which includes the inquest panchanama & Postmortem report. He arrested the accused on 19.07.2014. The muddemal property such as the clothes of the deceased, sickle, blood sample, simple earth and earth mixed with blood seized from the spot, the blood sample of the deceased & the blood sample of the accused were forwarded to Chemical Analyzer (C.A.). On conclusion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed it in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur. In due course, the case was committed to Sessions Court.
3. The charge was framed vide Exh. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. The accused has not entered into defence. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court has reached to a conclusion that, though the accused tried for offence u/s 302 of the IPC, but no case is made out u/s 302 of the IPC, however the offence u/s 304 of the IPC is proved against the accused. According
