Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.G. AVACHAT, NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Suresh, S/o. Narayan Sangekar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through The Police Station Officer, City Police Station, Dist. Hingoli - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2018 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2018 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.540 OF 2018 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2024 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.518 OF 2020 AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL BY STATE NO.91 OF 2020
Decided On : 22-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. V. D. Sapkal [Senior Advocate] i/b Mr. S. R. Sapkal, Adv., Mr. S. J. Salunke, Adv., Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Adv., Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde, Adv., Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Addl. PP.

The court ruled that the homicide was not murder but fell under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation during a sudden quarrel.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 324, 323, 304(Part-I) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 235(1), 235(2), 437A, 428 - Conviction and sentencing of accused for murder and assault - Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, later modified to Section 304(Part-I) IPC - Convicted accused sentenced to life imprisonment and fines, while others acquitted - The court emphasized that the act was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of passion during a quarrel over land dispute. (Paras 1, 44, 55, 58)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Charge framing - The court noted that the charge was framed with the aid of Section 149 IPC, but the conviction was based on individual acts, which did not prejudice the accused. (Paras 41, 44)

(C) Evidence - The court highlighted the importance of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in establishing the facts of the case, ruling that the prosecution proved the homicide and injuries sustained by witnesses. (Paras 39, 40)

(D) Acquittal - The court maintained acquittal for several accused due to lack of evidence linking them to the crime. (Paras 57, 58)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court's decision clarified that the death of the Deceased was not murder but fell under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, due to the absence of premeditation and the incident occurring in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel (!) (!) .
The conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 IPC was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(Part-I) IPC, given the circumstances and evidence indicating a sudden fight without premeditation (!) (!) .
The incident involved a land dispute, which was a significant factor in the quarrel that led to the assault. The evidence established that the assault was not premeditated but occurred suddenly during a quarrel over land (!) (!) (!) .
The medical and ocular evidence corroborated the occurrence of injuries inflicted by the accused using deadly weapons such as koyta, axe, stones, and sticks, which were capable of causing grievous injuries and death (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The medical evidence proved that the death was caused by injuries consistent with the assault, particularly a fatal blow to the neck, which was not premeditated but resulted from a sudden altercation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The accused were found to have acted without premeditation, and the incident was characterized as a sudden fight during a quarrel, which falls under exceptions to murder under the IPC, thus justifying the reduction of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (!) (!) .
The evidence demonstrated that the accused did not share a common object to kill but were involved in a spontaneous act of violence (!) .
The court observed discrepancies and omissions in the testimonies of witnesses, but overall, the evidence was sufficient to establish the assault and death caused by the accused, with injuries on witnesses corroborating the occurrence of violence (!) (!) (!) .
The sentences for the accused, including imprisonment and fines, were adjusted based on the modified conviction, with some accused being acquitted of certain charges due to lack of evidence or inconsistent testimonies (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appeals filed by the accused were partly allowed, leading to a reduction of charges and sentences, and some accused were acquitted of all charges, while others received lesser sentences for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and related offences (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court maintained the order of acquittal for certain accused and upheld the conviction and sentences for others, emphasizing that the incident was a spontaneous act without prior planning, thus excluding the intent necessary for murder (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The procedural aspects, including the framing of charges, the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical reports, and discovery of weapons, supported the conclusion that the assault was unpremeditated and occurred during a sudden quarrel (!) (!) (!) (!) .

These points summarize the court's reasoning, findings, and the legal implications regarding the nature of the homicide, the role of the accused, and the final disposition of the appeals.

JUDGMENT :

(Neeraj P. Dhote, J.)

1. As all these Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30/07/2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Sessions Trial No.36/2015, they are decided by this Common Judgment. The operative order of the impugned Judgment reads as under :

"1. Accused Nos.1 Subhash Shankerappa Satbhai, No.2 Gajanan Shankerappa Satbhai, 3. Shivanand Shankerappa Satbhai and 11. Suresh Narayan Sangekar are convicted under section 235 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each. In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Accused Nos.1 Subhash Shankerappa Satbhai, No.2 Gajanan Shankerappa Satbhai, 3. Shivanand Shankerappa Satbhai and 4. Ravi Subhash Satbhai and accused No.11 Suresh Narayan Sangekar are convicted under section 235 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand each). In default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. Accused No.6 Shankerappa Satbhai and accused NO.9 Pratima Gajanan Satbhai are held guilty for an offence punishable under Section under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Instead of sending them in jail, they be released on probation on their executing bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year for their good behaviour under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, they shall pay Rs.5,000/- each compensation to Sakhubai Bapurao Waikule within 15 days.

4. Accused No.5 Ramesh Subhash Satbhai, No.7 Mankarnabai Subhash Satbhai, No.8 Hari Santosh Hingankar and No.10 Jyoti w/o Shivanand Sangekar are hereby acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for offence under Section 147, 148, 302, 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code.

5. Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6, 9 and 11 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 120 (B) of Indian Penal code.

6. Set of under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure be given to convicted accused.

7. After realization of fine amount Rs.75,000/- be given to the Nandabai w/o Shivanand Waikule (widow of deceased) and Rs.25,000/- be given to the injured Ganesh Waikule as compensation.

8. Muddemal property being worthless be destroyed after appeal period.

9. Accused No.5, 7, 8 and 10 are directed to execute personal Bond for Rs.15,000/- each with surety in the like amount as per section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. Copy of Judgment be given to convicted accused free of costs.

11. Accused are informed about their right to appeal to Honourable High Court."

2. Appeal Nos.540/2018, 563/2018, 565/2018 and 76/2024 fled by the Appellants/Convicts are against conviction. Appeal No.518/2020 fled by the Informant and ALS No.91/2020 fled by the State are against acquittal.

3. The Prosecution's case, as revealed from the Police Report is as under :-

[I] The Informant and his family members on the one hand and the Accused/Convicts on the other hand were in dispute in respect of the part of agricultural land bearing Gat No.136, situated at Village Palodi, District Hingoli. Their agricultural lands are adjacent to each other. Both were claiming possession and ownership over the disputed land. On 01/06/2015 around 8.30 a.m., Shivanand Bapurao Waikule [hereinafter referred to as 'the Deceased'] and his wife proceeded towards the agricultural land with agricultural equipments. Accused No.2 [Gajanan Shankerappa Satbhai], Accused No.3 [Shivanand Shankerappa Satbhai] and Accused No.6 [Shankerappa Subhanji Sathbai] obstructed them from proceeding further in the agricultural land. They were constrained to re