Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused under Section 304-II IPC for Causing Death by Rash and Negligent Act, but Acquits Co-Accused for Lack of Common Intention. The court held that the accused's act of driving a tractor in a rash manner resulting in death amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and that the other accused present at the scene did not share common intention to cause death.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 22
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two appeals and a revision arising from the same incident. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.406/1998, Irappa Madhavrao Tondare, was the original accused No.1 convicted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.131/1995. The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No.133/1999 against the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 4 (Shivaji, Navnath, and Tanaji) for offences under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The wife of the deceased, Suman Nagnath Tondare, also filed a revision against the acquittal. The incident involved the deceased Nagnath Sadashiv Tondare being killed when accused No.1 drove a tractor in a rash manner, causing the deceased to fall and sustain fatal injuries. The court examined the evidence and found that the act of accused No.1 was rash and negligent, amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-II IPC. However, the court held that accused Nos. 2 to 4, who were present at the scene, did not share a common intention to cause death, and their acquittal was upheld. The court dismissed the appeal of accused No.1 and dismissed the State's appeal and the revision against the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 4.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304-II IPC - Rash and negligent act - Accused drove tractor in a rash manner causing death of deceased - Held that the act falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder as there was no intention to cause death but knowledge that such act is likely to cause death (Paras 1-10).

B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Acquittal of co-accused - Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were present at the scene but did not share common intention to cause death - Held that mere presence does not attract Section 34 IPC (Paras 11-15).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 304-II IPC is sustainable and whether the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC is correct.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Criminal Appeal No.406/1998 filed by accused No.1 is dismissed; Criminal Appeal No.133/1999 filed by State is dismissed; Criminal Revision Application No.96/1999 filed by Suman is dismissed.

Law Points

  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
  • Rash and negligent act
  • Common intention
  • Section 304-II IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Acquittal of co-accused
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 22

Criminal Appeal No.406 of 1998 with Criminal Appeal No.133 of 1999

2013-06-14

Naresh H. Patil, A.I.S. Cheema

Shri V.R. Dhorde for appellant (in Cri.Appeal No.406/1998); Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1; Shri V.D. Gunale for respondent No.2; Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for appellant (in Cri.Appeal No.133/1999); Shri V.R. Dhorde for respondent No.1

Irappa s/o Madhavrao Tondare (in Cri.Appeal No.406/1998); The State of Maharashtra (in Cri.Appeal No.133/1999)

The State of Maharashtra and Suman Nagnath Tondare (in Cri.Appeal No.406/1998); Irappa s/o Madhavrao Tondare and others (in Cri.Appeal No.133/1999)

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case

Remedy Sought

Accused No.1 sought acquittal; State sought conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 4 for murder and other offences

Filing Reason

Accused No.1 was convicted under Section 304-II IPC; accused Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted

Previous Decisions

Additional Sessions Judge, Latur convicted accused No.1 under Section 304-II IPC and acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4

Issues

Whether the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 304-II IPC is sustainable? Whether the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC is correct?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant (accused No.1) argued that the conviction under Section 304-II IPC is not sustainable as there was no intention to cause death. State argued that accused Nos. 2 to 4 shared common intention and should be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The act of driving a tractor in a rash manner causing death amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-II IPC. Mere presence of co-accused at the scene does not establish common intention under Section 34 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant was convicted under Section 304 – II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State appeal against acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted accused No.1 under Section 304-II IPC and acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4. Accused No.1 appealed against conviction; State appealed against acquittal; victim's wife filed revision. The High Court heard all matters together and dismissed all.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 304-II, 302, 323, 504, 506, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused under Section 304-II IPC for Causing Death by Rash and Negligent Act, but Acquits Co-Accused for Lack of Common Intention. The court held that the accused's act of driving a tractor in a rash manner res...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Civil Court Order Allowing Filing of Reply After Refusal — Civil Court Cannot Review Its Own Order Without Statutory Authority. The court held that a Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over its own order under Order 37 CPC a...