Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from two criminal appeals against the judgment of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, dated 3 October 2003, convicting the appellants for offences under sections 302, 325, 323, 147, and 148 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on 19 April 2002, the accused demolished a common boundary wall (Bandh) and threatened the complainant's family. In the afternoon, the accused allegedly attacked Nagappa (deceased) and others with lethal weapons; accused No. 1 stabbed Nagappa in the stomach, causing his intestine to protrude, and others assaulted him with swords. Nagappa died four days later. Other prosecution witnesses sustained injuries. An FIR was registered, initially at Sadar Bazar Police Station and later transferred to Akkalkot South Police Station as FIR No. 26/2002. A cross-complaint by the accused was also registered as CR No. 25/2002. The accused were arrested, blood-stained clothes seized, and weapons discovered at the instance of accused No. 1. The cross-complaint resulted in acquittal of the complainant's side by the Magistrate. In the present case, the Sessions Court convicted the accused.
The defence contended that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the offence and failed to explain injuries sustained by six accused. They claimed that the complainant's side attacked first and the accused retaliated in self-defence, leading to a free fight. They argued that the offence did not amount to murder but fell under section 304 Part II IPC by virtue of exception 4 to section 300. They pointed out contradictions and improvements in prosecution witnesses, suppression of the accused's FIR, and non-production of injury certificates. They also challenged the recovery of weapons under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The defence relied on Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, Babu Ram v. State of Punjab, and Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra.
The prosecution supported the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that the spot panchnama showed blood stains at four places, indicating a spread-out attack. They argued that the accused shared a common intention as an unlawful assembly and that accused No. 1's fatal knife blow was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Reliance was placed on Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar.
The High Court framed three core issues: (1) whether the prosecution established the offence under section 302/149 IPC; (2) whether the prosecution failed to establish the genesis due to non-explanation of injuries and whether the case fell under exception 4 to section 300; and (3) whether the other accused shared the common object under section 149. The judgment, as per the provided text, did not include the final analysis and decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether prosecution proved murder under section 302 read with 149 IPC; Whether prosecution suppressed genesis and failed to explain injuries on accused, entitling them to self-defence or benefit of exception 4 to section 300; Whether other accused shared common object under section 149
Law Points
- Culpable homicide
- murder
- distinction under sections 299
- 300 IPC
- exception 4 to section 300
- free fight
- self-defence
- non-explanation of injuries
- genesis of offence
- common object under section 149 IPC
- section 27 Evidence Act
- discovery of weapons
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (08) 78
Criminal Appeal No.1321 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No.1314 of 2003
V. M. Kanade, A.M. Thipsay
Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe, Mr. F.R. Shaikh
Somling Ramanna Patrigida, Yallappa Ramanna Patrigida, Maruti Ramanna Patrigida, Ramanna Shivningappa Patrigida; Shivnagappa Ramanna Patrigida, Bhojraya Ramanna Patrigida, Deelip Shivningappa Patrigida, Daulappa Maruti Patrigida
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for murder and other offences
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal or modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the judgment and order of the Sessions Court convicting them under sections 302, 325, 323, 147, 148 read with section 149 IPC
Previous Decisions
The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur convicted the appellants by judgment dated 3/10/2003 under sections 302/149 IPC etc. and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms. The cross-complaint filed by the accused was tried by the Magistrate and the accused in that case were acquitted.
Issues
Whether the prosecution established that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the IPC
Whether the prosecution failed to establish the genesis of the offence as a result of non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused and as a result of defence of self-defence taken by the accused and alternatively whether the case of the accused fell within exception 4 to section 300 IPC and as a result they were entitled to be acquitted
Whether the prosecution established that the other accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly or as members of that assembly knew that the murder of the deceased was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that prosecution suppressed genesis, failed to explain injuries to accused, and the incident occurred in self-defence or sudden free fight, thus offence under section 302 not made out and at most fell under section 304 Part II; they also challenged recovery under section 27 Evidence Act and pointed out contradictions and suppression of accused's FIR.
Prosecution argued that trial court correctly convicted under section 302/149 as accused shared common intention, spot panchnama supported case, and accused No.1 stabbed deceased with knife causing fatal injury; reliance placed on Sikandar Singh.
Judgment Excerpts
In the present case, prosecution has alleged that all accused had demolished a common boundary wall which is known as Bandh in local parlance and it was demolished on 19/4/2002 in the morning at 11.00 a.m and they had threatened P.W.6 – Remesh that they were going to construct a bungalow on the said portion and that they would murder the persons from his family if they obstruct the accused.
The questions which fall for consideration before this Court are (i) whether the prosecution has established that the accused had committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the IPC? (ii) whether the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of the offence as a result of non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused and as a result of defence of self-defence taken by the accused & alternatively whether the case of the accused fell within exception 4 to section 300 IPC and as a result they were entitled to be acquitted? and (iii) whether the prosecution has established that the other accused had shared the common object of the unlawful assembly or as members of that assembly knew that the murder of the deceased was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object?
Procedural History
The original accused were convicted by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur on 3/10/2003 under sections 302, 325, 323, 147, 148 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms. They filed the present appeals challenging the conviction. The cross-complaint filed by accused was tried by the Magistrate and the accused in that case were acquitted. The appeals were heard on 18th August 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 149, 325, 323, 147, 148, 299, 300, 304
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
