Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
Eknath Laxman Shinde & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Nigdi Police Station, Pune - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015 With Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 2022
Decided On : 08-03-2024
HOMICIDAL DEATH - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 34, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act - [304 (Part-II) read with 34 of the I.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the assault and subsequent death of the deceased following an altercation between the accused and the deceased. The deceased was assaulted by the accused with an iron bar and wooden log, resulting in head injury and a fracture to the right leg. The deceased later succumbed to the injuries, leading to the filing of charges against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the accused persons were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The court also upheld the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the assault, the intention of the accused, and the appropriate legal provisions to be applied in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the act of causing death committed by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention falls within the ambit of Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The court also emphasized the need for stringent punishment for such offences.
Final Decision: The court quashed the previous judgment and instead held the accused guilty under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposing a fine. The court also upheld the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appeals were partly allowed in the specified terms.
JUDGMENT :
Shyam C. Chandak, J.
1. Present Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12th December 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.570/2012 whereby Appellants ( hereinafter referred to as ‘accused Nos.1, 2 and 3’) have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ‘the I.P.C.’) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each i/d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 37 (1) r/w. Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each i/d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.
1.1 Initially, Criminal Appeal No.22/2015 was jointly filed by all the three accused. Later on, accused no.3 filed a separate Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.1053/2022. Hence, both Appeals are decided by this common Judgment.
2. Heard Mr. Daulat Khamkar, learned Advocate for the accused nos.1 and 2, Mr. Vrushabh M. Savla, learned Advocate for the accused no.3 and Ms. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record.
3. The prosecution case leading to the Appeals is as under :-
3.1 In May 2012, Manisha Shingade (PW5) her mother-Mangal Shingade (PW2), brother–Aakash and uncle–Balkrishna Shingade (PW6) were residing at Ajinkya Tara Housing Society Pradhikaran at Nigdi, Pune. The first informant–Rukmini Barge (PW1), her son–Prashant ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and family were also residing in the same society.
3.2 On 03rd May 2012, at about 11:30 a.m., at Amardeep Chowk, while Manisha (PW5) was returning home from college along with her friend–Revati, accused No.3 teased her. Immediately, Manisha informed this incident on phone to Mangal (PW2) who conveyed the same on phone to Balkrishna (PW6). In turn, Balkrishna phoned the deceased and asked him to go to the spot. Accordingly, the deceased went there along with Mangal. Then Mangal asked the accused No.3 as to why he is harassing Manisha. The deceased also tried to give an understanding to accused No.3, however, he behaved adamantly and threatened the deceased with dire consequence. Meanwhile, public gathered there, hence the accused No.3 went away. Thereafter deceased, Manisha and Mangal returned home.
3.3 On the same day, at about 02:30 p.m., after having lunch the deceased was sitting at the door of his house. His mother Rukmini (PW1) was at home. At that time, accused No.1 Eknath @ Ekkya came there along with his two companions (accused nos.2 and 3), armed with iron bar and wooden log. Then, they all assaulted the deceased on his head and leg by said weapons in their hands. The commotion attracted the attention of Rukmini, Mangal, Sandeep, Manisha and Balkrishna (PWs 1,2,4,5 and 6 respectively) and they came at the spot. Balkrishna (PW6) tried to intervene, but one of the assailants threatened him. Meanwhile people gathered there, hence the accused persons ran away.
3.4 The said assault resulted in head injury and fracture to right leg etc. of the deceased. Immediately, Sandeep (PW4) removed the deceased to Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi by car of Mr. Khamkar and admitted there giving the history of assault followed by a fall from a height of 10 feet. Dr. Modak (PW12) examined the deceased, noted his injuries and forwarded the M.L.C. Report (Exh.58) to police.
3.5 In turn, PSI Tekawade (PW15) went to Lokmanya Hospital. The deceased was not in a condition to give statement. Then PSI Tekawade returned to the police station along with Rukmini (PW1) where she lodged the report (Exh.19). Accordingly, this C.R. No.107/2012 was registered under section 325 read with 34 of I.P.C. by PHC Gawari. On the same day, PHC Gawari recorded the spot panchanama (Exh.35). PSI Tekawade did the initial investigation, during which he recorded
Participation in an assault leading to death can sustain a conviction under IPC Sections 304(Part II) and 447, even if the accused did not inflict the fatal blow.
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
The judgment establishes the principle that the intention to cause death can be inferred from various circumstances, leading to different convictions under the Indian Penal Code.
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, and absence of these elements can lead to a lesser charge.
The principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a prearranged plan for joint criminal liability; mere presence does not suffice if no common purpose is established.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I, considering the absence of prior intent and planning.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in culpable homicide cases, affecting the applicability of Section 304 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
