Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Couple for Causing Death by Negligent Act in Child Dispute. Appellants convicted under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC for causing death of a woman by pushing her into a gutter after a quarrel over children's fight.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 168
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Mirabai and Sakharam Patil under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of Ushabai. The incident occurred on 10 July 1999 when Ushabai, while going to a shop, saw the appellants' son Deepak beating her son Sachin. She slapped Deepak, who retaliated with abuses and a stick blow. The appellants, Mirabai and Sakharam, then came out and a quarrel ensued. During the quarrel, the appellants pushed Ushabai into a gutter, causing her death. The trial court convicted them and sentenced them to four years rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court considered the evidence and arguments. The appellants' counsel argued on merits and alternatively sought leniency. The husband of the deceased also filed an application seeking leniency. The court held that the act of pushing into a gutter, which was not deep, amounted to a negligent act causing death under Section 304-II IPC, not murder. The court also found that common intention under Section 34 IPC was established as both appellants participated. However, considering the long passage of time (incident in 1999) and that the appellants had already undergone about two months of custody, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304-II IPC - Death caused by pushing into gutter after quarrel - Appellants convicted for causing death by negligent act - Held that the act of pushing the deceased into a gutter, which was not deep, amounted to a negligent act causing death, not murder (Paras 1-3).

B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Both appellants present and participated in the incident - Held that common intention to cause death was not established, but common intention to cause such injury was present (Para 3).

C) Criminal Law - Sentence - Reduction of sentence - Appellants were in custody for about 2 months and incident occurred in 1999 - Held that sentence reduced to period already undergone (Paras 4-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-II IPC for causing the death of the deceased by pushing her into a gutter, and whether the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment is appropriate.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC upheld. Sentence reduced to period already undergone (about two months).

Law Points

  • Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • Section 304-II IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Common intention
  • Negligent act causing death
  • Sentence reduction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 183

Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2000 with Criminal Application No.5439 of 2014

2015-03-03

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Shri. P. N. Kutti for appellants, Shri. N. B. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, Shri. Ravindra B. Ade for applicant in Criminal Application No.5439 of 2015

Mirabai w/o Sakharam Patil and Sakharam S/o Bhika Patil

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal or lenient sentence

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the trial court for causing death of Ushabai by pushing her into a gutter

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment

Issues

Whether the appellants are guilty under Section 304-II IPC for causing death by a negligent act? Whether the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment is appropriate?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants' counsel argued on merits and alternatively for lenient view Husband of deceased filed application seeking leniency due to relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The act of pushing the deceased into a gutter, which was not deep, amounted to a negligent act causing death under Section 304-II IPC, not murder. Common intention under Section 34 IPC was established as both appellants participated. Considering the long passage of time and that appellants had already undergone about two months of custody, sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellants are convicted for offence punishable under section 304-II read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine. The incident in question took place on 10-7-1999.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellants in Sessions Case No.230/1999. Appeal filed in High Court. Criminal Application No.5439/2014 filed by husband of deceased seeking leniency. Judgment reserved on 27 February 2015 and pronounced on 3 March 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 304-II, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Civil Revision Petition Challenging Rejection of Plaint Rejection Application in Suit for Declaration and Injunction Regarding Public Property. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Application Rejected as Plaint Disclosed Cause of Ac...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Defence to Examine Witnesses to Prove Documents Regarding Complainant's Misconduct in Corruption Case — Section 482 CrPC Application Allowed. The court held that the accused has a right to lead defence evidence to prove rel...