Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
R.G. Avachat, J.
Navnath – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.302 of 2018
Decided On : 28-04-2022
N.B.Narwade, Advocate, S.P.Sonpavale, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the nature of injuries and the manner of assault in determining the appropriate charge and sentencing for the accused.
Headnote:
Conviction - Attempt to Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 307, Section 326, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for assaulting the victims with deadly weapons, resulting in grievous injuries. The trial court convicted them under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court set aside the conviction and convicted them under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the nature of injuries and the manner of assault indicated that it was not an attempt on the life of the victim, but rather an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants' actions constituted an attempt to commit murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of injuries, the manner and nature of the assault, and the evidence provided by medical professionals to determine the appropriate charge and sentencing for the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were modified based on the nature of the appellants' involvement in the assault.
JUDGMENT
R.G. avachat, J. - The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2018 in Sessions Case No.282 of 2012. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the appellants herein have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
appellant no.2 (original accused no.2) has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months
2. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as follows:-
PW 1 - Kalidas was resident of village Banpimpli, Tq. Shrigonda. He was professional auto rickshaw driver. He returned home with his auto rickshaw by 7.30 pm. On 22.05.2022. Then, he had been to a temple in the village for darshan. PW 2 - Satish had been to the house of PW 1 - Kalidas 2-3 times. Both PW 1 - Satish and PW 2 - Satish are cousin inter-se. again by little past 10.30 p.m., PW 2 - Satish came home of PW 1 - Kalidas.
The appellants herein came together in the front yard of the house of PW 1 - Kalidas. appellant no.1 - Navnath and appellant no.3 - Madan were armed with swords. appellant no.2 - Kalyan had with him iron rod and appellant no.4 - Rajendra was armed with wooden log. all of them took up a quarrel with Satish on account of previous enmity between them. The appellants questioned him whether he had come to the house of PW 1 - Kalidas with a view to beat them up. Both appellants - Navnath and Madan assaulted Satish on his face and leg with swords. Rajendra beat him up with wooden log. PW 1 - Kalidas intervened to save Satish. Kalyan, thereupon, assaulted Kalidas with iron rod on his left elbow. On hearing hue and cry, Sunita (PW 3), wife of Kalidas came. The appellants thereupon fled. Both Kalidas and Satish were first rushed to Civil Hospital, ahmednagar. Both of them took discharge against medical advice. Kalidas was admitted to anand Rushiji Hospital at ahmednagar. Satish was shifted to Sancheti Hospital at Pune. Kalidas lodged FIR (Exh.59) on 24.05.2012.
3. Crime came to be investigated. Statements of the persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. The medical papers of both the injured were obtained. The appellants, thus, came to be proceeded against by filing charge sheet.
4. Learned addl. Sessions Judge framed charge. The appellants pleaded not guilty. They claimed to have been falsely implicated in view of the previous enmity. The prosecution examined five witnesses and placed on record various documents to establish the charge. Learned addl. Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions, initially, for allowing the appeal in toto. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, when this Court expressed disinclination to allow the appeal in toto, learned counsel came around to submit that the evidence on record fell short to make out it to be an offence of attempt to commit murder. according to him, the crime, at the most, may be punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that the sentence of imprisonment of ten years is grossly disproportionate. He, therefore, urged for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
6. Learned aPP would, on the other hand, submit that the evidence on record establishes offence of attempt to commit murder. a lower limb of PW 2 - Satish had to be amputated. He would have died but for the timely medical treatment. Learned aPP would, ultimately, urge for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence on record.
8. Both the i
