Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 2176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.M. BADAR, JJ.
Sukhdev @ Bapu Namdev Daghale - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2011
Decided On : 02-12-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. S.V. Kotwal I/by Mr. Jayant J. Bardeskar, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Arfan Sait, APP.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused.
Headnote:
Assault - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302, IPC Section 304-II - The court discussed the evidence and found that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, leading to the conviction under Section 304-II of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting and causing the death of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of the deceased's father and the postmortem report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant assaulted his wife, leading to her death, and applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, resulting in the conviction under Section 304-II of IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of IPC or fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, leading to a conviction under Section 304-II of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injuries, absence of premeditation, and lack of undue advantage or cruel behavior to apply Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 302 of IPC was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304-II of IPC, with a custodial sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10000.
V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - convicted accused against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default S.I. for one year.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:
(a) Deceased Sharada was the daughter of PW 1 Bhausaheb. Sharada was married to the appellant in November 2008. Thereafter, she went to reside with her husband at Kahler, Taluka Bhiwandi. Sharada told her father that her husband not behaving properly with her. This fact was brought to the notice of her in-laws. Bhausaheb pacified his daughter Sharada. He then took his daughter to his house.
(b) On 25.10.2009, Bhausaheb took his daughter back to the house of the appellant at Kahler. The door of the house of the appellant was locked. Sharada, within the short time, traced her husband i.e the appellant and both came back to the house. Sharada told Bhausaheb that the appellant was angry and he was abusing. Sharada requested the appellant to open the door of the house. The appellant and Sharada entered the house. At that time, the appellant was assaulting Sharada on the face. Bhausaheb requested the appellant not to assault Sharada. At that time, the appellant threatened Bhausaheb. Bhausaheb went to the upper floor of the building i.e. to the house of the landlord as per the request of his daughter. When Bhausaheb came down, he saw that the door of the house was locked from outside. He saw his daughter lying on the ground and she was found dead. Bhausaheb then lodged F.I.R. Ex. 18. Thereafter, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 504 and 506 (ii) of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted his wife Sharada and caused her death.
5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the evidence of PW 1 Bhausaheb who is the father of deceased Sharada. Bhausaheb has stated that Sharada was married to the appellant in November 2008. Thereafter, she went to reside with the appellant at Kahler, Taluka Bhiwandi. Sharada told her father that her husband not behaving properly with her. This fact was brought to the notice of her in-laws. Bhausaheb pacified his daughter Sharada. He then took his daughter to his house. PW 1 Bhausaheb has further stated that on 25.10.2009, he took his daughter back to the house of the appellant at Kahler. The door of the house of the appellant was locked. Sharada, within the short time, traced her husband i.e. the appellant and both came back to the house. Sharada told Bhausaheb that the appellant was angry and he was abusing. Sharada requested the appellant to open the door of the house. The appellant and Sharada entered the house. At that time, the appellant was assaulting Sharada on the face. Bhausaheb requested the appellant not to assault Sharada. At that time, the appellant th
