Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 325 IPC in Grievous Hurt Case - State Appeal Against Acquittal for Murder Dismissed. The court held that the common intention was to cause grievous hurt, not murder, and the trial court's acquittal under Section 302 IPC was justified.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment pertains to two cross-appeals arising from a Sessions Case. The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the accused for murder under Section 302 IPC, while the convicted accused appealed against their conviction under Section 304 Part II and Section 325 IPC. The incident involved an altercation where the accused allegedly caused the death of a person by inflicting grievous injuries. The trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 4 under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), but acquitted all of murder. The High Court, after examining the evidence, upheld the convictions under Section 304 Part II and Section 325 IPC, finding that the common intention was to cause grievous hurt, not murder. The court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal under Section 302 IPC, as the prosecution failed to prove murder. The sentences were maintained.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction for causing death by grievous hurt - The court upheld the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 4 for causing death by grievous hurt, as the evidence established that they shared common intention to cause grievous hurt but not murder. (Paras 1-32)

B) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt - The court upheld the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the deceased, as the medical evidence confirmed grievous injuries. (Paras 1-32)

C) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - State appeal against acquittal for murder - The court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's acquittal was justified. (Paras 1-32)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 4 under Section 304 Part II IPC and accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 325 IPC is sustainable; and whether the State's appeal against acquittal under Section 302 IPC is maintainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No.237/2009 (accused's appeal) and dismissed Criminal Appeal No.398/2009 (State's appeal). The convictions under Section 304 Part II and Section 325 IPC were upheld, and the acquittal under Section 302 IPC was confirmed.

Law Points

  • Section 304 Part II IPC
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 325 IPC
  • Section 342 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Common Intention
  • Grievous Hurt
  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder
  • Acquittal Appeal
  • Conviction Appeal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (07) 131

Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2009

2022-07-08

Sunil B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap

Shri M.J. Khan, APP for the appellant (State); Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents/State

State of Maharashtra (in Cr.A.398/2009); Arun Gabhaji Pakade and others (in Cr.A.237/2009)

Arun Gabhaji Pakade and others (in Cr.A.398/2009); State of Maharashtra (in Cr.A.237/2009)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case.

Remedy Sought

State sought conviction under Section 302 IPC; accused sought acquittal from conviction under Section 304 Part II and Section 325 IPC.

Filing Reason

The State appealed against acquittal for murder; the accused appealed against conviction for culpable homicide and grievous hurt.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 4 under Section 304 Part II IPC and accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 325 IPC; acquitted all under Section 302 IPC.

Issues

Whether the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 4 under Section 304 Part II IPC is sustainable? Whether the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 325 IPC is sustainable? Whether the State's appeal against acquittal under Section 302 IPC should be allowed?

Submissions/Arguments

State argued that the evidence proves murder under Section 302 IPC. Accused argued that the injuries were not fatal and there was no common intention to cause death.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the common intention of the accused was to cause grievous hurt, not murder, and therefore the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was appropriate. The State failed to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

These two appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 16.03.2009 in a Sessions Case No.06/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 4 under Section 304 Part II IPC and accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 325 IPC, and acquitted all under Section 302 IPC. Both the State and the accused appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 304 Part II, 325, 342, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs Caste Scrutiny Committee to Decide Caste Claim Within Three Months — Petitioner Directed to Appear Before Committee. The court issued a time-bound direction for the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, wh...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Parole to Life Convict in COVID-19 Parole Case Due to Practical Construction of Rule. Condition of Two Prior Releases Cannot Be Applied Pedantically When Purpose Was Prison Decongestion Under Rule 19(1)(C) of Maharashtra Pris...