Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Court, Satara, convicting the appellants (original accused nos. 1 and 2) for offences under Section 325 read with Section 34 and Section 304(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on 10th June 1987 at about 9:00 p.m., when the deceased Maroti Jayaba Dhamal suffered a head injury and died. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including PW-3 (first informant) and PW-5 (his wife) as eye witnesses. The trial court convicted the appellants under both sections. On appeal, the High Court noted that accused no. 3 had died and the appeal against him abated. The court examined the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5, who testified that the appellants assaulted the deceased with sticks. The court found that the injury was a single blow on the head, and there was no evidence of premeditation or common intention to cause death. The court held that the conviction under Section 304(II) IPC was not sustainable as the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death was not established. However, the appellants acted in concert and caused grievous hurt, making them liable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The court altered the conviction from Section 304(II) to Section 325 IPC and maintained the sentence already undergone. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304(II) read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Alteration of conviction - Appellants convicted for causing death by head injury - Evidence showed single blow with stick on head, no premeditation or common intention to kill - Held that conviction under Section 304(II) is not sustainable and altered to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC (Paras 10-14). B) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Common intention - Appellants acted in concert to assault deceased - Injury caused by stick on head resulting in death - Held that appellants are liable for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with common intention (Paras 10-14). C) Criminal Law - Evidence - Eye witnesses - PW-3 and PW-5 testified to assault by appellants - Testimony found credible and consistent - Held that prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt for offence under Section 325 IPC (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 304(II) read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of eye witnesses and the nature of injuries inflicted
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 304(II) read with Section 34 IPC is set aside. Conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. Sentence already undergone is considered sufficient.
Law Points
- Section 304(II) IPC requires knowledge that act is likely to cause death
- Section 325 IPC covers voluntarily causing grievous hurt
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds
- Conviction under Section 304(II) can be altered to Section 325 if evidence does not establish knowledge of likely death
