Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, ARUN M. DHAVALE, JJ.
Govind S/o Maneji Vaidya – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2002
Decided On : 12-12-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Choudhari.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.D. Ghayal.
The judgment establishes the importance of considering the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the surrounding circumstances in determining the accused's intention and knowledge, leading to the application of the appropriate legal provision.
Headnote:
IPC - Murder - Section 302, Section 498-A, Section 304 Part II - The judgment discusses the evidence and circumstances surrounding the incident, the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the conduct of the accused. The court refers to various legal provisions and case laws to determine the intention and knowledge of the accused, ultimately convicting him under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his sister-in-law after a domestic dispute escalated, resulting in the appellant assaulting and causing fatal injuries to the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there was no intention of murder, the accused had knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the intention and knowledge of the accused in causing the fatal injuries to the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the surrounding circumstances to establish the accused's knowledge of the likely consequences of his actions, leading to the application of Section 304 Part II of IPC.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302 of IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC, sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 68/2000, which was pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short). The sentence of life imprisonment is given to him. Heard both the sides.
2. Deceased Yamunabai was daughter of Begaji Kawane, Resident of Taroda, Tahsil Umarkhed, District Nanded. She was given in marriage to Deoba, real brother of present appellant. The deceased has left behind one daughter Sharayu and son, who is younger to Sharayu. Sharayu was aged about 8 years at the relevant time. The appellant was living in Joint Hindu Family with Deoba and his parents at Bhokar, District Nanded. The charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant, Deoba and parents of appellant for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The present appellant and the other accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. In view of these circumstances, the evidence given as against the appellant only and only for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC needs to be considered.
3. The incident took place on 28.2.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. in the house where the appellant was living with the deceased, Deoba and his parents, at Bhokar. In the morning Maneji, father of appellant had left home for some work, but, he was present at the station. Deoba was not at station. Accused Kewalbai, mother of appellant, Sharayu, younger brother of Sharayu and the deceased were at home. Sharayu was eating Bhakar (bread of Jawar) and she was also feeding to the younger brother. After eating some Bhakar, when Sharayu started drinking water from the container of the house by using her hands, Kewalbai became angry. Kewalbai thought that Sharayu ought to have used pot for taking water from the container. Due to that, Kewalbai scolded both Sharayu and the deceased. Due to scolding, Yamubai became angry with Sharayu as due to conduct of Sharayu she had received scolding. The deceased started giving slaps to Sharayu and then Kewalbai intervened to stop deceased from giving beating to Sharayu.
4. Even after intervention of Kewalbai, the deceased continued to give slaps to Sharayu and one slap hit Kewalbai and due to that her bangles got broken. The appellant was in the vicinity. The appellant felt that the deceased had given slap intentionally to Kewalbai. He became angry and he picked up wooden pan of Chapati (round shaped wooden article) and started giving beating to Yamunabai with the pan. Kewalbai tried to intervene, but the appellant gave blows of pan and one blow hit the head of the deceased. The deceased collapsed and died on the spot.
5. Somebody informed Maneji about the incident. Maneji returned to home, collected information from Kewalbai and then gave report to Bhokar Police Station. The appellant left the house after the death of Yamunabai. On the basis of report given by Maneji, the crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC came to be registered in Bhokar Police Station.
6. During investigation, police prepared inquest panchanama of dead body of Yamunabai and the dead body was referred for P.M. examination. The spot panchanama was prepared. Blood was found in the Osari portion of the house where the incident had taken place. Beyond Osari portion, there were two rooms which were used for sleeping etc. by this family.
7. During investigation, police recorded statements of the relatives on parent's side and also of the neighbours of the appellant as one lady neighbour had rushed to the spot after hearing shouting of Yamunabai. The relatives of deceased made allegations that there was illtreatment to the deceased right from the beginning. Due to that the crime for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC was also registered. The appellant came to
