Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Intent and Provocation - Conviction under Section 304-I IPC Set Aside as Evidence Shows Sudden Fight Without Premeditation.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Bapu alias Raju Dynandeo Chavan, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros, for the offence punishable under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000. The case arose from an incident on 4th April 1996, when the appellant attacked his distant cousin Subhash Chavan with a sickle while the latter was plucking mangoes in his agricultural land. The victim sustained multiple incised wounds and died. The prosecution examined witnesses including PW-11 Dilip Damari, who saw the appellant giving blows, and PW-4 Subhash Ghadi, the Sarpanch, who found the appellant hiding with blood-stained clothes. The appellant claimed that the victim had pelted a stone at him and abused him, provoking the attack. The High Court considered the evidence and found that the incident occurred suddenly without premeditation, and the appellant had no intention to cause death. The court held that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which reduces culpable homicide to one not amounting to murder. Consequently, the conviction under Section 304-I was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed his release unless required in any other case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Sudden Fight - The appellant was convicted under Section 304-I IPC for causing death by a sickle attack. The court examined whether the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which requires a sudden fight without premeditation. The court found that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without premeditation, and the appellant acted in a sudden quarrel. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction under Section 304-I IPC is sustainable given the circumstances of sudden fight and provocation?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 304-I IPC set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.

Law Points

  • Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
  • Sudden fight
  • Lack of premeditation
  • Benefit of doubt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 64

Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 1997

2019-10-15

Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav

Mr. Lokesh Zade, Mr. Manas Gawankar for appellant; Mr. S.R. Agarkar for State

Bapu alias Raju Dynandeo Chavan

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 304-I IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment by the trial court.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced to ten years' RI and fine of Rs. 2000.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 304-I IPC is sustainable? Whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the incident occurred suddenly without premeditation and he was provoked. Prosecution argued that the appellant intentionally caused death with a sickle.

Ratio Decidendi

The incident was a sudden fight without premeditation, falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, thus the offence is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but the conviction under Section 304-I was not appropriate as the case did not fall under that section.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I of Indian Penal Code... He had sustained as many as 30 incised wounds.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellant on 21st March 1997. Appellant filed appeal in High Court. High Court heard and allowed appeal on 15th October 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 304-I, 300
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Intent and Provocation - Conviction under Section 304-I IPC Set Aside as Evidence Shows Sudden Fight Without Premeditation.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Interim Compensation Under Section 140 MV Act Cannot Be Kept in Abeyance. Tribunal erred in deferring no-fault liability compensation pending final adjudication of main claim petition.