Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
The Sate of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Sandip Sarjerao Vaidya – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 671, 747 of 2016 with Criminal Application No. 922 of 2018
Decided On : 10-09-2018
For the Appellant : Smt. V.S. Chaudhary.
For the Respondent: Mr. Joydeep Chatterji.
Headnote:
Right to Private Defence - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part II - The court discussed the right to private defence in the context of protecting property and the proportionality of the response. It highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances at the time of the incident and the normal course of human conduct in determining the accused's actions. The court also emphasized the need for the accused to prove the necessity and proportionality of their actions in claiming the right to private defence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal by the prosecution for enhancement of punishment and an appeal by the accused challenging his conviction for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The incident stemmed from a dispute over the passage of a jeep through the accused's land, resulting in a scuffle and the accused stabbing the victim, who later succumbed to his injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the victim was homicidal but not amounting to murder, leading to the accused's conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The court also considered the right to private defence claimed by the accused and the proportionality of his actions in the given circumstances.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the victim's death, the accused's claim of right to private defence, and the proportionality of the accused's response in the context of protecting his property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, to determine the nature of the victim's death and the accused's actions. The court emphasized the need for the accused to establish the necessity and proportionality of his actions in claiming the right to private defence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the prosecution's appeal for enhancement of punishment and partly allowed the accused's appeal, maintaining his conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC but modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The court also upheld the compensation awarded to the widow of the deceased.
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
1. All these matters are arising out of the same proceedings, therefore, proposed to dispose of by this common judgment.
2. At the outset, it is stated that Criminal Application No. 922 of 2018 is filed by the original accused for suspension of sentence and releasing him on bail. However, since we have decided to hear both the parties finally, there is no reason to deal with the bail application. Therefore, it is disposed of.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 2016 has been filed by the prosecution-State for enhancement of punishment contending that inadequate sentence has been awarded to the respondent-accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 159 of 2012 dated 21.10.2016 by holding accused guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
4. Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2016 is filed by original accused challenging his conviction in the aforesaid case by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna holding him guilty of committing offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Three months. He is also challenging the order of amount of fine to be given as compensation to the wife and parents of the deceased.
5. Prosecution had come with a case that one Sachin Suresh Bamnawat, resident of Nihalsing wadi, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna lodged First Information Report (FIR) with Police Station Ambad on 07.07.2012. He has stated that he is owner of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 122 admeasuring 8 Acres situated in Rohilagad Shivar. One Sandip Sarjerao Vaidya is having his agricultural land adjacent to the land of Sachin Bamnawat. Sachin was present in his land and the work of construction of well was going on. On 07.07.2012 around 1.00 p.m. one Lakhan Harising Sisode, who was owner of vehicle i.e. Jeep/Pick-up bearing No MH-21-AC-1760 had brought cement for the well under construction in the land of Sachin. One Poonam Chainsing Bamnawat was along with Lakhan. The cement bags were unloaded around 1.30 p.m. and present accused i.e. Sandip Vaidya obstructed jeep by saying that vehicle should not be taken from his land. He started abusing them. He also started to release the air from tyre of the Jeep. Sachin, Lakhan and Poonam alighted from the jeep in order to pursue Sandip. At that time, Sandip suddenly took knife from his waist and gave a blow towards left side of chest of Lakhan. Lakhan sustained severe injury, at that time Sandip fled away on the motor-cycle. The blood was oozing from the injury of Lakhan. As a result of which, he became unconscious and fell on the spot. Sachin had informed said fact to Sarpanch - Kachrusing Hiralal Bahure. On information, Sarpanch and others came to the spot immediately. They all picked up Lakhan and put him in Pick-up Van. As Lakhan was injured, Poonam drove the Jeep and Lakhan was brought to the Government Hospital at Ambad. He was examined by Doctor and it was opined that he is serious, therefore, he was referred for further treatment in Ambulance. Sachin went to the Police Station and lodged FIR.
6. On the basis of FIR, offence vide Crime No. 158 of 2012 came to be registered under Sections 307, 341 and 504 of the IPC against the accused and investigation was undertaken.
7. The panchnama of spot was effected with the help of two panchas. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Lakhan was taking treatment at Aurangabad. Investigating Officer (PW-13) the then P.I. Jaybhaye came to know that Lakhan expired, therefore, he had sent one PSI to GHATI, Aurangabad. Inquest panchnama came to be drawn on 08.07.2012 and dead body of the deceased was referred for post mortem. After receipt of provisional report of post-mortem, offence under Section 302 of the IPC came to be added and it was informed on 09.07.2012 to the Judicial Magistrat
