Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Culpable Homicide Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Knowledge. Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove that the accused had knowledge that his act of throwing a stone was likely to cause death.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Vilas Bajirao Jadhav, was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 298/1990 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. He appealed against this conviction under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prosecution case was that on 28th August 1989, the deceased Sunil @ Anil Chandan Shive, a contract labourer, died accidentally. During the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C., an inquest panchanama was drawn. The prosecution alleged that the accused threw a stone at the deceased during a quarrel, causing his death. The court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the state. The court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. The court noted that the circumstances did not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. The court held that the conviction was not sustainable and set it aside. The accused was acquitted and his bail bonds were discharged.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Knowledge - The prosecution alleged that the accused threw a stone at the deceased during a quarrel, causing death. The court held that the evidence did not establish that the accused had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. The conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted. (Paras 1-13)

B) Evidence Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused. The accused was given the benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-13)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted. Bail bonds discharged.

Law Points

  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
  • Section 304 Part-II IPC
  • Knowledge
  • Intention
  • Circumstantial Evidence
  • Benefit of Doubt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 51

Criminal Appeal No. 346 / 1998

2021-02-22

Sandeep K. Shinde

2021:BHC-AS:2153

Mr. Rahul S. Kate, Advocate for Appellant; Smt. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for State/ Respondent

Vilas Bajirao Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction and sentence

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by Sessions Court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Previous Decisions

Sessions Case No. 298/1990 convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC is sustainable on the evidence on record

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt State argued that the evidence established the guilt of the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had knowledge that his act of throwing a stone was likely to cause death, which is essential for conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The evidence did not establish the requisite mens rea.

Judgment Excerpts

Aggrieved by the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, accused in the Sessions Case No. 298 / 1990 has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Prosecution case in brief is that; Sunil @ Anil Chandan Shive (deceased) was working as a contract labour on the establishment of M/s Siemens Company.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 298/1990 under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 22nd February 2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 304 Part-II
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 174
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Culpable Homicide Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Knowledge. Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove that the accused had knowledge that his act of throwing a stone was li...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Orders Against Social Workers for Lack of Material and Non-Application of Mind. Orders under Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 Section 56(1)(b) set aside as show-cause notice and externment order failed to specify prej...