IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M. DESHPANDE, G.A. SANAP, JJ.
Deva alias Devendra s/o Ishwar, Gabhane - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.615/2018
Decided on : 17.01.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304-I or II, 354D, 241, 504 and 506(II) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 – Offence of Murder – Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whether death is homicidal, suicidal or otherwise – Held, Court are of opinion that learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in holding appellant guilty for above offence - Advocate in fact situation submitted that offence committed by appellant would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304-I or II of IPC - Perusal of judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge would show that said plea was raised before learned Additional Sessions Judge - Additional Sessions Judge, for reasons recorded in his order was pleased to reject it – Court have given our thoughtful consideration to this submission in juxta position with oral and documentary evidence brought on record - It is pertinent to mention that dispute about money transaction was not immediately preceding date of murder - Appellant, on account of old dispute, carried grudge in his mind - Appellant followed deceased with weapon used in crime - This fact would indicate that he made a planning and preparation - Appellant knew that deceased in morning as usual would go to college with her friends - Appellant chased them; accosted deceased and within a few minutes of verbal conversation between them brutally assaulted deceased - He inflicted 24 injuries on body of innocent girl - Friends of deceased tried to persuade appellant that he should not kill their friend - However, appellant did not pay any heed - Intention of appellant to murder deceased would be writ large by taking a look at weapon used and series of blows inflicted on vital parts of body of deceased - In Court view, therefore, submission made by learned Advocate that offence made out would be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cannot be accepted - Murder committed by appellant is a brutal - Appellant did not stop inflicting blows till decease fell on ground and died – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G.A. SANAP, J.
1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 21.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Special (Child) Criminal Case No. 12/2015, whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302, 354D, 241, 504 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the remaining offences, sentence ranging from three years to fifteen days was separately awarded with fine and a sentence in default of payment of fine.
2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows.
The unfortunate deceased is Ku. Shilpa d/o Ramdas Jambhulkar, r/o village Walni, Tq. Dist. Bhandara. On the date of murder, she was studying in 11th standard in Zilla Parishad Junior College, Asangaon. For attending the college, she used to do up and down from her village on bicycle. The college would open at 7.30 a.m. The deceased along with girls of the village would attend the college.
3. On the fateful day of incident dated 20.02.2015, deceased along with Ku. Jija Ukare (PW3), Deepali There (PW5), Deepa Jambhulkar and Manisha Hatwar was proceeding to the college on bicycle. It is the case of the prosecution that on the way, near electricity DP, appellant Dewa alias Devendra Ishwar Gabhane was sitting near the brook. On seeing them, he came towards them, stopped the bicycle of deceased and questioned the deceased Shilpa as to why she had beaten him. The deceased Shilpa answered that she did not beat him. Her mother beat him and therefore he should go to her mother and question her about it. The deceased Shilpa then proceeded ahead. When she reached near electric DP, the appellant followed her and by giving a cut to her bicycle, stopped his bicycle in front of her. The deceased fell down. Appellant caught her braid of hair, inflicted the blows on her neck with sickle. The deceased raised shouts to save her. Other girls accompanying the deceased tried to save their friend but the appellant extended the threat to kill them if they obstructed him. The girls therefore went to the college and narrated the incident to the teachers. The teachers went to the spot and after some time informed them that Shilpa died.
4. The appellant along with the weapon went to Police Station, Paoni. HC Balakram Nimkar (PW12) was station diary incharge. Appellant narrated the incident to him. The constable called two pancha witnesses and in their presence seized sickle stained with blood from the appellant. Similarly, he seized clothes of the appellant. Station diary incharge gave information to PI Rajendra Nagare (PW9). He went on the spot with two panchas. PI Nagare drew the spot panchanama and seized the articles found on the spot.
5. Vilas Tighare (PW1) Police Patil lodged the report of the incident. On the basis of his report, PI Nagare (PW9) registered crime bearing No.20/2015 against the appellant. During the course of investigation, dead body was sent to post mortem. The medical officer conducted the post mortem and collected the samples. Samples were forwarded to the police station. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. The bicycle was discovered at the instance of the appellant. Samples were sent to the Chemical Analyzer (CA) for analysis. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge Exh.-5 was framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was of denial and false implication.
6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, examined in all 13 witnesses. On consideration and analysis of the evidence, the learned A
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.