Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
M.S. JAWALKAR, M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
Arvind Sangitrao Deshmukh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ner - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 712 of 2019
Decided On : 03-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 304, and 326 - Conviction for murder and attempted murder - Appellants convicted under Sections 302 r/w. 34 and 307 r/w. 34, sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - Acquitted accused involved in a land dispute - Appellant Arvind attacked Vilasrao Deshmukh and Praful Bhaise with a spear, leading to death of Praful - Court found insufficient evidence against appellant Pranit, leading to his acquittal - Medical evidence indicated death due to septicemia, not directly from injuries - Conviction of Arvind altered to Section 304, Part-I and Section 326 with reduced sentence. (Paras 2, 3, 17, 22)
(B) Evidence - Dying declaration - Court emphasized the importance of corroboration and consistency in witness testimonies - Dying declaration of deceased Praful did not assign specific roles to appellant Pranit, leading to reasonable doubt. (Paras 16, 18)
(C) Legal principles - Intention and premeditation in murder - Court ruled that the nature and depth of injuries suggested lack of intent to kill, altering the conviction accordingly. (Paras 19, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Praful Bhaise and attempted murder of Vilasrao Deshmukh during a dispute over agricultural land. The incident involved the use of spears, resulting in serious injuries. Appellant Pranit was acquitted due to lack of evidence linking him to the assault.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence against appellant Pranit was insufficient to sustain a conviction, while appellant Arvind was guilty of a lesser charge due to the nature of the injuries inflicted.
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence against appellant Pranit and the intent behind the actions of appellant Arvind.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the injuries were not fatal and did not indicate intent to kill, leading to a reduction in the charge against Arvind.
Result: The appeal of appellant Pranit was allowed, and his conviction was set aside; the conviction of appellant Arvind was altered to a lesser charge with a reduced sentence.
Key Points: - Appellants convicted originally under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 34; sentence life imprisonment and fines; Pranit acquitted (Paras p_1, p_2, p_3, p_6, p_7) (!) (!) - Dying declaration did not assign specific roles to Pranit; evidence created reasonable doubt; benefit of doubt in Pranit’s favor; acquitted (Paras p_16, p_17) (!) (!) - Injuries and nature of blows led court to find lack of intent to kill; Arvind’s conviction altered to 304 Part I and 326; reduced sentences; concurrent running (Paras p_51, p_52, p_53) - Death caused by septicemia, not directly by injuries; medical evidence supports reconsideration of murderous intent (Paras p_1, p_21, p_22) (!) (!) (!) - Final orders: Pranit acquitted; Arvind convicted under 304 Part I and 326 with specified sentences; sentences run concurrently (Paras p_49–p_53) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
(M.W. CHANDWANI , J.) :
Heard.
2. The appeal is an exception to the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 84/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 307 r/w. 34 of the IPC.
3. The facts of the case can be put in a narrow compass as under:-
i) Appellant- Arvind Deshmukh (accused no. 1) is the brother-in-law, Pranit Deshmukh (accused no. 2) is the nephew whereas, acquitted accused no. 3- Pushpa @ Bebitai Deshmukh is the real sister of Vilasrao Deshmukh. There was a dispute between Vilasrao Deshmukh and Bebitai over the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 204. On 22.06.2016, in the morning at about 10:45 am, first informant- Bandu Borkar, Ashok Bhimte, Vilasrao Deshmukh, Praful Bhaise who is the son-in-law of Vilasrao Deshmukh along with Shamrao Chaudhari, who is a Surveyor working at the office of Taluka Inspector Land Record (TILR), Ner went to the said field. Both the appellants and acquitted accused- Bebitai were present there. The Surveyor was intending to inspect the agricultural land of Gat No. 204 for measurement but acquitted accused- Bebitai did not allow the Surveyor to inspect the said land. On this issue, a quarrel took place between Vilasrao Deshmukh accompanied by Praful Bhaise on one side and both the appellants accompanied by Bebitai on the other. Appellants- Arvind and Pranit took out spears from a row of Brinjal plants. Appellant- Arvind attacked the left side of the person of Vilasrao Deshmukh above the stomach and to the right side of his waist by means of the spear. Whereas, appellant- Pranit attacked the right- side of the abdomen of Praful and the left side of his back by means of the spear. Both the appellants fled away from the spot on a motor- cycle. First informant- Bandu Borkar, Sandip Chaudhari and Ashok Bhimte boarded injured- Vilasrao Deshmukh and Praful Bhaise in the Omni car and took them to Rural Hospital, Ner. Thereafter, they were shifted to Criti Care Hospital, Yavatmal. The matter was reported by first informant- Bandu Borkar, whereupon Crime No. 219/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 of IPC came to be registered.
ii) The Police visited the spot and prepared spot panchnama. Two wooden sticks were seized from the spot. The statement of Praful Bhaise came to be recorded. The appellants and Bebitai were arrested. On 26.06.2016, injured Praful Bhaise died and an offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC came to be added. After the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and the accused persons were put on trial. The prosecution, in all, examined 12 witnesses. The learned Judge, by the impugned judgment, recorded conviction and awarded the aforesaid sentence to the appellants, whereas Bebitai came to be acquitted. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and the sentence, the present appeal came to be filed.
4. The prosecution has relied upon the version of Shamrao Chaudhari (PW2), who is an employee of TILR, Ner, Vilasrao Deshmukh (PW3), an injured, Bandu Borkar (PW7), an eye-witness and ASI- Kishore Watkar (PW9), who recorded the dying-declaration of deceased- Praful. The Trial Court relying on the version of these eye- witnesses and the dying-declaration, convicted the appellants. Let us re-appreciate the evidence of these witnesses at the hands of the Court.
5. According to Shamrao Chaudhari (PW2) who was serving as a measurer in the office of the TILR, Ner, on 22.06.2016 at about 9:00 am, when he was inspecting the boundaries of the field of Gat No. 204, Bebitai obstructed him. Appellants- Arvind and Pranit also came there. Appellant- Arvind took out two spears from
The court ruled that the nature of injuries inflicted did not demonstrate intent to kill, leading to a conviction under lesser charges.
The court established that the act of the accused was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as it was committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of the right of private defence by the accused and the application of the principle of individual offense in cases of exceeding the....
Point of Law : Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue adva....
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.
Intention to cause death was not established; thus, conviction under Section 302 IPC was quashed and modified to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Conviction and sentence can be upheld where ocular evidence of injured is corroborated by medical evidence of doctor.
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
