Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 26/01/2015 at about 8:00 p.m. when the deceased Firoz Shaikh, who ran a chicken shop, refused to give chicken to the accused due to pending dues. A quarrel ensued, during which accused No.1 pressed the deceased's neck and accused Nos.2 and 3 gave fist blows on his chest and face. The deceased fell at the spot and died. His wife, employees, and neighbours took him to the hospital, but he was declared dead. The accused were originally charged under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for murder, but the trial court convicted them under Section 304(II) r/w 34 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, sentencing them to 10 years RI each and directing payment of Rs.25,000/- each as compensation to the victim's wife under Section 357(3) CrPC. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence did not establish the offence. The High Court, after examining the evidence, held that the act of pressing the neck and giving fist blows was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death, thus falling under Section 304(II) IPC. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no reason to interfere. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304(II) IPC - Common intention - Section 34 IPC - The appellants were convicted for causing death of the deceased by pressing his neck and giving fist blows over a quarrel regarding unpaid dues for chicken purchase. The court upheld the conviction under Section 304(II) IPC as the act was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without intention to cause death. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Procedure - Compensation - Section 357(3) CrPC - The trial court directed each accused to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the wife of the victim, with default sentence of 6 months RI. The High Court did not interfere with this order. (Para 2) C) Evidence - Medical evidence - Cause of death - The post-mortem report indicated death due to asphyxia and injuries consistent with manual strangulation and fist blows. The court relied on medical evidence to conclude that the act was likely to cause death. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 304(II) r/w 34 IPC is sustainable on the basis of evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 304(II) r/w 34 IPC and the order of compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
- Section 304(II) IPC
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC
- Acquittal from murder charge when no intention to cause death
