Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1993, where the two appellants were convicted under Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The case pertained to an incident on 15 March 1992 at Maygaon Devi, involving a dispute over irrigation water distribution. According to the prosecution, the complainant Kankarbhai Amirbhai Shaikh, a worker on the field of Laxmanrao Gade, and the victim Rajendra Gade (son of Laxmanrao) were attempting to divert water to their field by closing an outlet. The accused persons, Suryakant and Shashikant Chandrakant Gade, were present at the outlet and objected to its closure, claiming they needed to water their own field. When the victim explained that he had permission from the channel incharge, accused No.2 Shashikant allegedly struck the complainant with a stick near the hip. The victim then slapped accused No.1 Suryakant after Suryakant charged at him with a spade. In return, accused No.2 Shashikant hit the victim on the head with a stick, and accused No.1 Suryakant struck the victim’s head with the blunt side of a spade, causing grievous injuries. The victim fell unconscious and was taken to hospitals in Kopargaon, Nashik, and ultimately Bombay Hospital due to the seriousness of the head injury. The FIR was lodged on 17 March 1992 by the complainant. The police investigation led to the arrest of the accused, recovery of the weapons (spade and stick) at the instance of accused No.2, and seizure of blood-stained clothes. Medical evidence showed the victim suffered a depressed fracture of the left temporo-parietal region and a hematologic contusion; the complainant sustained a fracture of the L5 vertebra causing spondylitis. The accused pleaded not guilty and their defence, as revealed in cross-examination and Section 313 CrPC statements, was that the victim and complainant forcibly attempted to divert water despite protest, leading to a scuffle in which the victim fell on a rock and sustained injury. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 307 and 325 with Section 34 IPC. In the appeal before the High Court, the appellants argued that no valid permission for water diversion was proved, the land was not under the irrigation block, and the circumstances justified the right of private defence. The State did not file an appeal seeking conviction under a higher section. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the final decision of the High Court, as the text ends during the submissions of the appellants’ counsel.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable; whether the accused were entitled to right of private defence.
Law Points
- Attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC
- grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC
- common intention under Section 34 IPC
- right of private defence
- appreciation of evidence in irrigation water dispute
