Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prasanna B. Varale, V. G. Bisht, JJ.
DNYANESHWAR ARJUN BHAGWAT and another - Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 512 of 2014
Decided On : 6-10-2020
For the Appellants : Mrs. Ayesha Ansari along with Mrs. Nasreen Ayubi
For the State : A. R. Patil, APP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the nature of the offense and the intention of the accused in causing the death, leading to the application of Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 302, Section 34 - The judgment discusses the application of Section 300 and Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlights the legal provisions and interpretations of culpable homicide, murder, and the requirements for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300. The court's decision is influenced by the assessment of the nature of the offense and the intention of the accused, leading to the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC for causing the death of the deceased. The prosecution's case revolved around a quarrel that led to the deceased sustaining a fatal head injury, resulting in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' act of delivering a solitary blow on the deceased's head did not demonstrate the intention to cause death. The court concluded that the offense committed by the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, leading to the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Issues: The key issue was to determine the nature of the offense and the intention of the accused in causing the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the relationship between the parties, the circumstances of the incident, and the nature of the injury inflicted to assess the intention of the accused. It concluded that the appellants' act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentencing the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304 Part-II r/w 34 of IPC.
JUDGMENT :
V. G. BISHT, J.
The present Appeal has been instituted by the appellants-accused, against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16th May, 2014 passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2011. They were convicted and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/each and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution against the appellants-accused is as follows :-
On 20-4-2011 at about 10.00 a.m., informant was proceeding towards his house through Maruti Galli from Jategaon S.T. Stand. When he reached near Maruti Temple, a motorcycle dashed him from behind as a result of which he fell down. According to prosecution, informant’s nephew Dyaneshwar (A1) and informant’s brother Arjun Sakhahari Bhagwat (A2) were riding the said motorcycle. The prosecution alleges that when the informant confronted A1 as to why he was dashed, both the accused got down from the motorcycle, started abusing and told the informant why he was not walking down properly. Meanwhile, younger brother Balu Sakhahari Bhagwat came for intervention but both the accused abused him and A2 caught hold of said Balu Sakhahari Bhagwat and A1 gave a blow of tommy on his head and thereby caused bleeding injury.
3. The prosecution then contends that the villagers, namely, Nana Pandurang Wagh (PW 7) and Dyaneshwar Vishwanath Pawar separated the quarrel and the injured was rushed to Government Hospital, Nandgaon where the Medical Officer after giving the first aid sent him to Malegaon for further treatment. In the said incident, according to prosecution, the informant also sustained injury on his back and right elbow. The informant accordingly lodged the report with Nandgaon Police Station on the basis of which Crime No. 55 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the appellants-accused.
4. It appears from the record that PW 17 Police Constable visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot panchanama and seized sand and blood stained stand from the spot under the panchanama. PW 18 Police Constable seized blood stained shirt of A1 (Exh. 35 ). PW22 PSI prepared the inquest panchanama (Exh. 17) of the dead body and sent the body for postmortem and collected the postmortem report. PW 23 API during the course of investigation recorded the statements of witnesses. He also recorded the disclosure statement of A1 given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, collected the CA report and after completion of investigation forwarded the chargesheet against the appellants-accused.
5. To substantiate the Charge against the appellants-accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The appellants-accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and they expressed ignorance and denied all of them as false and that a false case has been filed against them.
6. Ms. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants-accused, submitted that the whole incident took place in a spur of moment and that the accused had not come with a preconceived plan to assault the deceased. According to learned counsel, even if the accusations of the prosecution are accepted in toto, a case under Section 302 of IPC is not made out and since the assault made in course of quarrel, the learned trial Court committed an error in law by awarding conviction under Section 302 of IPC. According to learned counsel, Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel also placed reliance in the cases of Induben Arjun Wagh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 CJ (Bom) 1312, Pul
