Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Gadkari, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
Mahadeo @ Jijya Nathu Thorve R/o. Charholi Khurd - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 936 Of 2015
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Assault - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellant for assaulting the deceased. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the appellant's actions fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, leading to a conviction under Section 304 (Part-II) instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 of the IPC for assaulting the deceased. The prosecution's case revolved around a dispute over open space of land, leading to the fatal assault on the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's actions fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, leading to a conviction under Section 304 (Part-II) instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC or fell under Exception 4 of Section 300, leading to a lesser charge under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, including the deceased's intoxication and the sudden nature of the assault, to apply Exception 4 of Section 300, leading to the appellant's conviction under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 of the IPC was set aside, and instead, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000.
JUDGMENT :
A. S. Gadkari, J.
1. Appellant (Org.A-1) has impugned Judgment and Order dated 3rd September, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, District Pune, in Sessions Case No.337 of 2014, convicting Appellant under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the I.P.C.”) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and for other prescribed sentence on other counts and to pay a total fine of Rs.6,500/-.
2. Heard Mr. Bhujbal, learned Advocate appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai to represent Appellant and Mr. Hulke, learned APP for State. Perused entire record.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case in brief is that :-
Appellant and his family members (Org.A-2 to 6) were having dispute on account of open space of land situated at village Charohli Khurd, Taluka Khed, District Pune with the deceased Nathu Jijaba Thorave and his family members. Appellant and deceased were neighbours. That, due to the said dispute in respect of open space, Original Accused No.2 namely Sangita R. Thorave used to abuse deceased.
(ii) Prior to two months of the incident, because of the harassment at the hands of all Accused persons, Shantabai Bhosale (PW-4) i.e. wife of Shankar Bhosale and Shankar Bhosale went to reside at their daughter’s place at Khed. On 24th February, 2014 at about 10.00 a.m. Shantabai Bhosale (PW-4) and her husband Shankar Bhosale had been to village Charholi. They saw that, Appellant and his family members had cut down shrubs which were grown in the disputed open space. Shankar Bhosale asked the Appellant and his family members as to why they cut down the shrubs and some bickering took place. On the same day i.e. on 24th February, 2014 at about 6.00 p.m. Shankar Bhosale was sitting at the door of his house. He was uttering/prating some words, due to which Appellant and his family members came on the road in front of the house of Shantabai Bhosale (PW-4).
(iii) PW-4 heard shouts of her husband and therefore peeped from the window of her house and saw that, all Accused persons were assaulting her husband. She therefore came out of the house. She saw that, Appellant was armed with a stick and was assaulting her husband with it. Other Accused persons (Org.A-2 to 6) were assaulting her husband by fist and kick blows. All the Accused persons were abusing and instigating each other to kill her husband i.e. Shankar Bhosale. Shantabai Bhosale (PW-4) tried to intervene in the quarrel. As Accused persons tried to nab Shantabai Bhosale she rushed to Police Station, Aalandi. The Police did not take cognizance of her grievance and therefore she returned to her home at about 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.. Her husband was at home.
(iv) She therefore called Prashant P. Karale (PW-6) to her home. Prashant P. Karale (PW-6) came to her house at about 8.30 p.m. by his four wheeler vehicle. PW-4, PW-6 alongwith one other person took Shankar Bhosale to YCM Hospital, Pimpri. Shankar Bhosale was admitted to the hospital and was declared dead while undergoing treatment in the mid-night.
(v) Shantabai Bhosale (PW-4) lodged First Information Report (FIR) (Exh-23). Appellant alongwith other Accused was arrested. Cloths of Appellant were seized in presence of Satyawan K. Gawade (PW-1) by effecting panchanama (Exh-24). The stick (Article-1) used by Appellant in the present crime was recovered in the presence of panch witnesses Nitin D. Gholap (PW-2) and Nandu P. Gholap (PW-3) by effecting panchanama (Exh30). The spot panchanama (Exh-36) was also effected in presence of PW-2 and PW-3. Bhaskar H. More (PW-8), the Investigating Officer conducted inquest panchanama (Exh-35) and the body of Shankar Bhosale was sent for post mortem.
(vi) Dr. Milind V. Sonawane (PW-7) conducted post mortem on the dead body of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, leading to a conviction under Section 304 (Part-II) instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
The right to private defense was exceeded; intent to kill established through the brutal nature of the attack, making the appellant liable for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The judgment established that culpable homicide can be classified as not amounting to murder when committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, as outlined in Excep....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's rejection of the defense of accidental death and the application of exception 4 to section 300 of the IPC, leading to the conviction un....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which requires the fulfillment of specific requirements to invoke the exception, such as ....
A mitigating circumstance to bring incident within Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC and thereby court view that act of causing fatal blow on deceased would be a culpable homicide not amounting to murde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgments to evaluate the nature of the assault, the intent of the accused, and the....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the IPC.
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
