Bombay High Court Alters Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide in Single Blow Case. Lack of Intention to Cause Death and Use of Non-Lethal Weapon Led to Reduction of Offence Under Section 304 Part II IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 88
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Nandkumar Shriniwas Kaduskar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Kiran Eknath Waghmare. The prosecution case was that on 7-10-1995 at about 11:30 p.m., the deceased abused the accused persons (appellant and his keep, accused no.2), leading to a quarrel. The appellant beat the deceased with a piece of wood (lakadi) on the head, causing fatal injuries. The deceased's mother, Sindhubai, witnessed the incident and filed a report. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused no.2. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the weapon used was a wooden plank, not a lethal weapon, and the blow was not aimed at a vital part with intention to cause death. The court held that the appellant had no intention to kill but only to chastise, and the death was caused by a single blow. Therefore, the offence fell under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302. The court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (about 7 years). The appeal was partly allowed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 302, 304 Part II IPC - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing death by a single blow with a wooden plank. The High Court held that the weapon used was not lethal, the blow was not aimed at a vital part, and there was no intention to cause death. The conviction was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC. (Paras 1-5)

B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Eye Witness Testimony - The court scrutinized the evidence of eye witnesses and found inconsistencies, but still upheld the occurrence. The acquittal of co-accused did not automatically entitle the appellant to acquittal. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder is sustainable on the basis of evidence on record, and if not, what lesser offence is made out.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and altered to Section 304 Part II IPC. Sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Law Points

  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
  • Lack of intention to cause death
  • Alteration of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC
  • Appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 66

Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 1998

2005-07-26

V.G. Palshikar, R.C. Chavan

Shri Rahul S. Kate for appellant, Shri A. S. Shitole APP for State

Nandkumar Shriniwas Kaduskar

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal or reduction of conviction from murder to lesser offence.

Filing Reason

Appellant aggrieved by judgment dated 27-2-1998 of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicting him under Section 302 IPC.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and acquitted co-accused.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable. Whether the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC instead.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that evidence is inadequate, eye witness account not proper, and co-accused acquitted so appellant should also be acquitted. Alternatively, appellant argued that weapon (wooden plank) is not lethal, intention was only to chastise, not kill, so conviction under Section 302 is erroneous; at most grievous hurt.

Ratio Decidendi

A single blow with a wooden plank, not aimed at a vital part, without intention to cause death, does not constitute murder under Section 302 IPC but culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned trial Judge therefore erred in convicting the accused no.1 under section 302 IPC. The intention was only to chastise the victim and not to kill him.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC on 27-2-1998. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 1998 in Bombay High Court. High Court heard and decided on 26-7-2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 304 Part II, 323, 201, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Petition in Seniority Dispute Over B.Ed. Qualification Date. Education Officer's decision to exclude service period due to D.Ed pay scale held erroneous under Schedule F of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools R...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act Case Because Act Not Retrospective for Assessment Year 1957-58. Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 Section 2 Held Inapplicable to Agricultural Income-Tax Assessment for Year Beginning A...