Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Sanjay Sahebrao Parkhe – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2022
MURDER - SUSPICION OVER CHARACTER - IPC Section 302 - [IPC Section 302] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 300 of IPC and its exceptions, particularly exception 4, and relied on various precedents to determine the nature of the offence. The court concluded that the appellant was the author of the homicidal death of his wife due to suspicion over her character, falling under Section 302 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, who he had been suspecting of having relations with another man. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellant assaulting his wife with an axe, resulting in her death. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing that the incident fell under exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was responsible for the homicidal death of his wife due to suspicion over her character, and that the motive for the murder was established prior to the incident. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 302 of IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions fell under exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, and whether the conviction under Section 302 of IPC was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the nature of the injury, the motive established prior to the incident, and the absence of provocation to conclude that the case fell under Section 302 of IPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 302 of IPC.
JUDGMENT :
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
1. Appellant is the original accused who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 141 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, District Ahmednagar on 1.1.2015, after holding him guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that present appellant got married to deceased Mangal about 10 years prior to the date of incident i.e. 25.6.2014. The appellant and Mangal used to reside at Shrirampur and they had daughters by name, Radhika and Anjali. However, some years later, the appellant started assaulting and ill-treating Mangal by raising suspicion over her character. Informant - Pavlas Dagdu Satdive, who is the father of deceased Mangal, used to give advice to the appellant that he should not raise unnecessary suspicion over the character of Mangal and should not ill-treat her. However, because of the said ill-treatment two months prior to 24.6.2014, Mangal went to her father’s house alongwith daughters. Four days thereafter, the appellant went to the house of the informant and told that Mangal should be allowed to accompany him. But, when it was expressed that Mangal is not ready to cohabit in view of the fear in her mind, the appellant started residing with the informant and Mangal as well as the daughters. Still, he continued to raise suspicion over the character of Mangal.
3. It is further prosecution story that Mangal, appellant, informant and his daughter-in-law - Archana were at the house around 8.00 a.m. on 24.6.2014. At that time, the appellant had given assault by means of an axe on the head of Mangal. The assault was so forceful that the axe literally got embedded in the head of Mangal causing heavy bleeding injury to her. Though the informant Pavlas had tried to take out the axe, but he was pushed by the appellant causing injury to Pavlas also. He then cried for help. Other persons as well as son of the informant gathered and they caught hold of the appellant. Mangal was taken to Vadala-Bahiroba for treatment. However, the Doctor declared her dead.
Informant Pavlas had then lodged lodged report about the incident on the same day, which came to be registered vide Crime No. 129 of 2014 under Section 302 of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, Inquest Panchanama was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. After postmortem was carried out, the clothes on the person of the deceased came to be seized by drawing Panchanama. The accused came to be arrested and the clothes on the person of the accused were also seized by drawing panchanama. Informant was sent for medical examination and later on, his Medical Certificate has been collected. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after the conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
5. After committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The contents of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused. In view of his plea, trial was conducted. The prosecution had examined in all 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, held the offence proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
6. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, for the appellant.
7. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses. PW-1 Pavlas, PW-4 Sonali, are the eye witnesses. Though both of them have stated that the accused inflicted single blow to the deceased by means of an axe, in his cross-examination, PW-1 Pavlas had admitted that before the incident, quarrel had taken place between Mangal and the accused. Mangal was saying that accused had relations with other woman. This fact was never considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as a provocation by deceased to ac
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the injury, the presence of a motive prior to the incident, and the absence of provocation are crucial factors in determining th....
The court ruled that a stabbing occurring during a quarrel, influenced by mutual provocation and intoxication, merited a conviction under Section 304-I of the IPC instead of Section 302.
Exception IV to Section 300 IPC allows for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights or quarrels without premeditation or undue advantage.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court established that culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention or knowledge regarding the fatal injury, with the absence of premeditation and the nature of the confrontation i....
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
