Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
C.V. BHADANG, PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
Shri Naushad @ Jabbar Beig, S/o Kasimsab Beig – Appellant
Vs.
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 OF 2016
Decided on : 22-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Dolorosa Chiquita Tulkar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri M. Amonkar, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which influenced the court's decision to modify the appellant's conviction.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 of IPC - The court discussed the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented, highlighting the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which led to the decision to modify the conviction to Section 304 Part II of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for stabbing the deceased, resulting in his death. The appellant appealed the conviction, claiming that the case fell within the ambit of Section 304-II of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence and circumstances indicated a sudden quarrel and a single blow inflicted by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, warranting a modification of the conviction to Section 304-II of IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of IPC or fell within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, justifying a conviction under Section 304-II of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which led to the conclusion that the appellant's actions did not amount to murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 302 of IPC was modified to Section 304 Part II of IPC, and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
By this appeal the appellant challenges his conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji on 23.10.2015 by which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for 6 months.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 24.7.2011, the appellant stabbed one Prashant, with a knife on the left side of chest at about 20.30 hours near a room where the deceased and the appellant were residing at the site of Ruby Construction, Gera Emporium Building, EDC complex, Patto Panaji in a sudden quarrel. Injured Prashant was immediately shifted to the hospital, however, he succumbed to said injury. The appellant came to be arrested and FIR bearing No.216/2011 came to be registered against him at Panaji Police Station, Panaji.
3. PW17 Ramesh Gaonkar, was incharge of the Police station at the relevant time. He visited scene of occurrence and contacted wife of the deceased namely PW16 Lata Machi - the only eye witness of the incident. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. He arrested the appellant. He also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pancha witnesses. He collected the sample of the mud from the spot of the incident under panchanama and sealed the same. He had seized the weapon of offence i.e. a Knife lying on the spot with blood stains. It was duly seized under panchanama. It was a 10 inches long Knife with handle. Its blade is 5.7 inches. Seized muddemal was sent for chemical analysis at CFSL Hyderabad. The appellant was also referred for medical examination. Medical report of the appellant is produced at Exh.24. Clothes of the appellant were also seized. After investigation he laid a chargesheet against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji under Section 302 of IPC. Learned JMFC, Panaji committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Panaji.
4. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and the defence framed a charge against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. Defence of the appellant as emerged from the line of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is that of denial and false implication in the case. No defence evidence has been adduced on his behalf.
5. In order to substantiate the charge the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant had knowingly and intentionally caused death of Prashant during the scuffle by inflicting the blow of Knife with force on his chest which had resulted into his death. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, answered the only point framed by him, in the affirmative and convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.
7. We have heard Ms. D. Tulkar, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have gone through the evidence on record and the impugned judgment.
8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it cannot be said to be a case of 302 of IPC inasmuch as it is based on circumstantial evidence in which neither the prosecution has established motive nor there is any evidence worth the name to find the accused guilty of intentionally and knowingly causing the death of deceased Prashant. The learned Counsel took us through the evidence of the various prosecution witnesses. The evidence of most of the witnesses is hearsay in nature as the incident in question occurred during night hours and except wife of the deceased namely PW16 Lata Machi there is no other evidence on record pointing towards complicity of the appellant in committing the said offence. It is submitted that at the most it would be a case falling within the ambit of Section 304-II of IPC.
9. On the othe
