Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shrawan Dagdu Pawar, was convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Ravindra alias Bhausaheb Shridhar Dhumal under Section 302 IPC and for causing hurt under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The incident occurred on 11 September 2006 over a dispute regarding the use of a footpath passing through the appellant's land. The deceased, his parents, and others were attacked by the appellant, his father Dagdu, and brother Ganesh with weapons including a sword, iron bar, and stick. The appellant inflicted a fatal blow on the head of the deceased. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found that the appellant had no intention to cause death; the blow was given in the heat of the moment during a quarrel. The court held that the offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out and instead convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 324 IPC. The court also considered the injuries caused to other persons and upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone (about 1 year and 6 months) for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 324 IPC, with both sentences to run concurrently.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction for murder requires proof of intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death - In the present case, the appellant inflicted a single blow on the head of the deceased with a sword, but the court found that the blow was not intended to cause death and the appellant had no motive to kill - Held that the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 324 IPC - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - The appellant also caused injuries to other persons with a sword - The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC for the injuries caused to the complainant and others (Paras 16-18). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The court found that the appellant acted in concert with his father and brother, but since the father and brother were acquitted, the appellant's conviction under Section 34 IPC was not sustainable for the main offence (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offence, and whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone (about 1 year and 6 months). The conviction under Section 324 IPC is upheld and the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Both sentences to run concurrently. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Law Points
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 304 Part II IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 326 IPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 149 IPC
- Section 96 IPC
- Section 100 IPC
- Section 101 IPC
- Section 105 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 3 IPC
- Section 4 IPC
