High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Acquits Accused of Murder, Convicts Under Section 304 Part I IPC for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder. Single Blow on Cheek with Sickle Held Not Sufficient to Prove Intent to Kill, Reducing Offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 152
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Murlidhar @ Murlya Gangaram Pawara, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his father Gangaram Pawara and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident occurred on 11.07.2014 when the appellant, in a drunken state, demanded money from his father for liquor. Upon refusal, a quarrel ensued, and the appellant picked up a sickle lying nearby and inflicted a blow on his father's cheek and left leg. The deceased succumbed to injuries the same night. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and medical reports. The court noted that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel without premeditation, the appellant was drunk, and only a single blow was inflicted on the cheek (a non-vital part) and one on the leg. The court held that there was no intention to cause death, and the act did not fall within the exceptions to murder. Consequently, the court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (about 1 year and 3 months), ordering the appellant's release unless required in another case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Single blow on cheek with sickle - Accused in drunken condition demanded money, deceased refused, sudden quarrel ensued - Accused inflicted one blow on cheek and one on leg - Deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage - Held that there was no intention to cause death, no premeditation, and the act was done in a sudden fight, thus offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC (Paras 1-15).

B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Absence of intention to cause death - Single blow on non-vital part - Held that the injury on cheek was not on a vital part and the accused did not repeat the blow, indicating lack of intention to cause death, hence Section 302 IPC not attracted (Paras 10-15).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable or the offence falls under a lesser penal provision such as Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone (about 1 year and 3 months). Appellant to be released unless required in another case.

Law Points

  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
  • Section 304 Part I IPC
  • Single blow
  • Lack of intention to cause death
  • Sudden quarrel
  • Drunkenness
  • No premeditation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 25

Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2016

2016-10-19

V. L. Achliya

Mr P. B. Patil for appellant, Mr A. V. Deshmukh APP for respondent/State

Murlidhar @ Murlya S/o Gangaram Pawara

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal or reduction of sentence.

Filing Reason

Appellant aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable. Whether the offence falls under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the single blow did not indicate intention to cause death. State argued that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, supporting conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi

In a sudden quarrel without premeditation, a single blow on a non-vital part with a sickle, without repetition, does not indicate intention to cause death, thus the offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The assault made resulted into causing severe injuries to his father. The accused lifted sickle lying there, which his father was using for weaving cot and inflicted blow over the cheek and left leg of his father and ran away from the spot leaving the sickle on the spot.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC on 10.08.2015 in Sessions Case No. 173/2014. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2016 in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. Judgment reserved on 24.08.2016 and pronounced on 19.10.2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 304, 304 Part I
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Maintenance Orders Under Domestic Violence Act — Son's Majority Does Not Bar Maintenance. The court upheld maintenance for wife and son under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Viole...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Acquits Accused of Murder, Convicts Under Section 304 Part I IPC for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder. Single Blow on Cheek with Sickle Held Not Sufficient to Prove Intent to Kill, Reducing Offence from Sec...