Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No.126 of 2015. The appellant, Mohammad Amir Shaikh Mohammad, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default imprisonment for one year. The prosecution case was that on 15.07.2015 at about 1.00 p.m. at U.P. Bombay Hotel/Dhaba and Transport at Nashirabad, Jalgaon, the appellant, who was a cleaner on a truck driven by the deceased Rajkumar Singh Suryadin Singh, attacked the deceased with a wheel spanner on the back of his head while the deceased was sleeping after lunch. The first informant, Mrutyanjay Jayprakash Tiwari, who was the manager of the dhaba, and another truck driver, Vishwanath Datadin Yadav, witnessed the attack. The accused was caught at the spot while attempting to flee. The police registered crime No.74/2015 under Section 302 IPC at Nashirabad Police Station. The investigation was conducted by API Sarthak Nahate and later by S.D.P.O. Rohidas Pawar, who filed the charge-sheet. The trial court examined nine witnesses and convicted the appellant. In the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution did not examine real eyewitnesses, the evidence of so-called eyewitnesses was unreliable, and the panchanamas were doubtful. It was also alternatively submitted that the deceased had abused the accused, causing grave and sudden provocation, and the single blow indicated absence of intention to commit murder, making the case fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant relied on Shrimant @ Wantya Mokinda Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Stalin v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, and Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra. The State argued that the case rested on direct evidence, the eyewitnesses were trustworthy and consistent, their statements under Section 164 CrPC were consistent, and the seized wheel spanner had blood stains matching the deceased's blood group. The State contended that the accused planned the attack after noticing the deceased sleeping and that it was not a case of grave and sudden provocation. The High Court recorded that the case entirely rested on direct evidence and examined the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. It noted that PW-1's inability to read and write Marathi was not sufficient to doubt his presence or the lodging of the FIR because the contents were read over and he signed after verifying. The available text of the judgment ends at this point and does not include the final operative order or explicit holding on the alternative defense under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Eyewitness Testimony - Reliability of First Informant as Eyewitness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - The first informant/manager deposed that the accused attacked the deceased with a wheel spanner while the deceased slept; his admission that he could not read and write Marathi did not undermine credibility because the FIR contents were read over and he signed after verifying them - Held that such admission is not sufficient to doubt his presence as an eyewitness or the lodging of the FIR (Paras 19-21). B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Grave and Sudden Provocation - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part II - The appellant alternatively argued that the deceased abused him, causing grave and sudden provocation, and a single blow lacked intention to murder; the State contended the accused waited and attacked when the deceased was asleep, showing planning - The provided text records submissions and analysis of eyewitness evidence but does not include the final holding on this issue (Paras 10-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified based on direct eyewitness evidence; whether the offence, if proven, amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC due to grave and sudden provocation
Law Points
- Appreciation of direct eyewitness testimony
- Reliability of first informant's FIR when contents read over and signed
- Alternative defense of grave and sudden provocation under Section 304 Part II IPC
- Proof of murder under Section 302 IPC requires intention and premeditation versus sudden provocation
- Statements under Section 164 CrPC as corroboration
- Homicidal death based on postmortem and C.A. report
