Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mitaram s/o Tohidas Vaidya, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gondia, for the murder of his son Anmol under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-. The prosecution case was that on 24.8.2016, the deceased demanded Rs.500 from the accused, who refused. The next day, 25.8.2016, the deceased again demanded money and also took Rs.20 from his mother for mobile recharge. While the deceased was sitting at the 'chhapri' (veranda), the accused was also present. A quarrel ensued when the deceased asked for Rs.500 to go to Nagpur, and the accused cited upcoming festivals and lack of funds. The accused then went inside the house, returned with an axe, and struck the deceased on the head. The axe got stuck in the head. The mother, Dayawantabai, shouted for help; neighbours arrived, and the son Shailesh removed the axe, but the accused snatched it again. The deceased was taken to hospital but succumbed to the injury on 26.8.2016. The police registered a crime based on the report. The trial court convicted the accused. In appeal, the appellant argued that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the single blow did not indicate intention to cause death, thus the offence should be under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The State opposed, contending that the accused went inside to fetch the axe, showing intention. The High Court analyzed the evidence, including the oral dying declaration of the deceased naming the accused, the testimony of the mother and other witnesses, the medical evidence showing a fatal head injury, and the recovery of the axe. The court held that the act of fetching the axe from inside and striking on the head, a vital part, with such force that the axe stuck, clearly indicates intention to cause death. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, bringing the case under Section 300 IPC. Exception 4 was not applicable as the accused had time to reflect. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction upheld - Accused father gave a single axe blow on the head of his son following a quarrel over money - The blow was fatal and the axe was stuck in the head - Medical evidence confirmed the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - Held that the act falls within the ambit of murder under Section 300 IPC and not Exception 4 (sudden quarrel) as the accused went inside, fetched the axe, and returned to strike, indicating intention (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Oral dying declaration - Mother of deceased testified that deceased named the accused as the assailant before death - Such oral dying declaration is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Held that the dying declaration is reliable and corroborated by other evidence (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Law - Sentence - Life imprisonment - Section 302 IPC - Accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- - No mitigating circumstances warranting reduction - Held that the sentence is appropriate and confirmed (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his son is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- (in default, further imprisonment for 2 months) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia on 27.11.2018 in Sessions Trial No.72/2016 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Murder
- Section 302 IPC
- intention to cause death
- deadly weapon
- single blow
- head injury
- axe
- father-son relationship
- provocation
- sudden quarrel
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
- medical evidence
- post-mortem report
- dying declaration
- oral evidence
- circumstantial evidence
- conviction upheld
