Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRASANNA B. VARALE, V.G. BISHT, JJ.
Satish Chandrakant Dixit and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665, 828 of 2012
Decided On : 19-01-2021
Assault - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302, 323, 504 read with 34 - The court discussed the legal provisions of culpable homicide, murder, and exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC. It interpreted the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden fights and the absence of premeditation. The court concluded that the accused's act was not a cruel act and did not take undue advantage of the deceased, falling within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The court held that the appropriate conviction of the appellant-accused would be under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a verbal altercation between society members over playing cricket, leading to a scuffle and the accused assaulting the deceased. The prosecution alleged murder under Section 302 of the IPC, while the defense contended that the case was of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused's act fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as it was a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The court concluded that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased, and thus, the appropriate conviction was under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's act constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC or fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies in cases of sudden fights without premeditation and held that the accused's act did not amount to murder but fell within the scope of Section 304 Part II IPC.
Final Decision: The court acquitted one appellant-accused and convicted another under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
V.G. BISHT, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 23rd May 2012 in Sessions Case No. 682 of 2009. Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2012 is preferred by accused Satish Dixit (A-1) and Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2012 is preferred by accused Suyash Dixit (A-3).
2. Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as under:
(b) On 24th April 2009 at about 10.30 p.m. it is alleged that there was verbal altercation between the members of the society Shashikant M. Kanade and the deceased on the point of playing cricket by the boys in the parking slot of the society. It is further alleged that, meantime, A-1 and his wife namely Supriya (A-2) and sons Suyash @ Joy (A-3) and Kshitij (juvenile in conflict with law) came on the spot and A-2 asked the deceased as to why he had abused her sons and therefore a verbal altercation took place amongst them. The deceased thereafter abused A-2. Seeing this, A-1 intervened and the same was followed by verbal altercation between A-1 and the deceased. At the relevant time the members of the society viz. informant, Prasad Pagare, Bhimsen Pagare, Wadekar, Shende and Mehta intervened and tried to pacify them but in vain.
(c) The prosecution further alleges that all the accused then started assaulting the deceased with fist blows and in the scuffle they went up to the main road towards the gate of the society and it is at this point of time that A-3 allegedly took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased on the chest, neck, back and other parts of his body and caused bleeding injuries. As the deceased became unconscious, the accused left the spot and went away. The members of the society then immediately removed the deceased to hospital. However, the doctor declared him dead.
(d) Informant accordingly lodged the report with Yerwada Police Station on the basis of which PW-8 Ms. Runal Salahuddin Mulla, Police Inspector, registered the offence under Section 302, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) vide C.R. No. 196 of 2009 and thereafter visited the place of occurrence and recorded Spot Panchnama. She also collected blood samples found on the spot and seized other articles lying there. She also drew Inquest Panchanama and sent the body for postmortem.
(e) It further appears from the record that thereafter she handed over the investigation to PW-6 Subhash Shantaram Neve, Police Inspector. PW-6 during the course of investigation recorded statement of prosecution witnesses. He also seized a knife pursuant to the disclosure statement given by A-3. All the seized articles were sent by him to Forensic Science Laboratory and then he handed over the further investigation to Police Inspector Deshmukh. On completion of investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer forwarded the charge-sheet against the accused and in usual course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
(f) Appellants-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and contended that they have been falsely implicated. According to A-1, infact deceased himself assaulted him and had fallen him on the ground in the parking slot and that time his younger son Kshitij tried to save him but deceased also assaulted Kshitij. It is his further defence that as he was Chairman of the Housing Society, deceased wanted him to give name of some caste related person to the society which he refused and therefore the deceased was annoyed with him. Whereas according to A-3 the witne
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
