Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
Chacha @ Gulam Ahmed Vahid-Uzma Shaikh - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 1997
Decided On : 26-09-2019
S.R. Phanse, Adv., M.K. Kocharekar, Adv., S.R. Agarkar, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under section 304 part II - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 304 part II, Exception 4 of Section 300 - The court discussed the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The court found that the appellant deserved to be acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the deceased, who later succumbed to the injuries. The appellant intervened in a quarrel between the deceased and his wife, and the altercation led to the assault and subsequent death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant deserved to be acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the evidence of the child witness did not appear to be a sterling testimony.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the lack of implicit reliance on the evidence of the child witness.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Order of Conviction and sentence was quashed and set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
JUDGMENT :
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- I.d. to suffer R.I. for two months, by 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune vide Judgment and Order dated 17/9/1997 in Sessions Case No. 211 of 1997. Hence, this appeal.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :
(i) On 6th April, 1997 there was a quarrel between Toraswami Devendra(deceased) and his wife Kantaya. That he had returned home under influence of alcohol. He was a known alcoholic. He was insisting upon his wife Kantaya(P.W.1) to serve meals forthwith. On that count, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. Their voices had reached a high pitch.
(ii) The accused (appellant) who was residing in the same vicinity had intervened in order to stop them from quarreling. He had seen that P.W. 1 was being harassed by her husband. That her husband had also assaulted her. Hence, the accused/appellant intervened between them.
(iii) Toraswami had questioned the appellant about his authority in intervening in quarrel between the husband and wife and at that juncture, the appellant had slapped him.
(iv) Soon thereafter, P.W. 1 had left her house to go to her sister's house. The appellant had also returned to his own house. Within no time, their daughter namely Laxmi had rushed to her mother and informed her that the accused/appellant had assaulted her father Toraswami with stick on his head and that her father had collapsed in front of his house. P.W. 1 rushed to the scene. She saw her husband lying in front of the house of the appellant.
(v) She thereafter, approached police station and lodged report as she had realised that her husband had succumbed to the injury and had expired. She narrated the incident to the police, on the basis of which Crime No. 96 of 1997 was registered against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Swargate Police Station.
(vi) The investigation was set in motion and after filing of the charge-sheet, case was committed to Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 211 of 1997.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, the case rests upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Kantaya, wife of the deceased. P.W. 2 Laxmi, daughter of the deceased and P.W. 3 Dr. Sudhir Nanadkar, who had performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.
4. P.W.1 Kantaya happens to be the wife of the deceased. She has deposed in consonance with the first information report, which is marked at Exh. 10. She has stated that the appellant was residing near their house. Upon seeing her in distress and being abused at the hands of her husband, the appellant had taken liberty of intervening. He had slapped her husband and restrained him from harassing her any further. Thereafter, she had left the house to go to her sister's house. Her sister was residing near Laxminarayan Theatre. After about half an hour her daughter, who was about 11 years old, had rushed to her and informed her that her father was assaulted by the appellant in front of his house and that he had fallen down. She has categorically admitted that when the appellant had intervened, his intervention was disliked by her husband and he had abused him by saying that he has no business to interfere between the husband and wife. She has also admitted that on the date of the incident, the deceased had returned home under the influence of alcohol. That the appellant had in fact, requested him to keep quiet and not to abuse P.W.1. She has also admitted that soon after the incident, the appellant had left their house.
5. P.W.2 Laxmi has deposed before the Court that on the day of the incident, after quarrel between her parents, she
