Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellants for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder in Stick Assault Case. Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for causing death of deceased by stick blows, acquitted of murder under Section 302 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two criminal appeals filed by Sudhakar Pawar (accused 1) and Balidas Pawar (accused 2) against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2004 in Sessions Trial 92/1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. The appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.250 each. They were originally charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder, but the trial court acquitted them of murder and convicted them for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution case is that on 08.09.1991, the complainant Shalu Daryadas Bhosale was sleeping in front of her hut with the deceased Fulabai Nagindas Pawar, her sister-in-law. The complainant awoke to hear Fulabai shouting and saw accused 1 Sudhakar assaulting Fulabai with a stick. The complainant's husband Daryadas rushed to the spot and caught hold of Sudhakar. Accused 2 Balidas then inflicted a stick blow on Fulabai's stomach. Daryadas shouted that the person being assaulted was Fulabai, and then Balidas assaulted Daryadas with a stick. Daryadas used Sudhakar as a shield, causing Sudhakar to receive stick blows. The legal issue is whether the appellants are guilty of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court heard arguments from Shri Vinay Dahat for accused 1 and Shri H.R. Dhumale for the State. The court noted that the learned counsel for accused 2 remained absent and decided the appeal on merits after scrutiny of record, following the dictum in Bani Singh vs. State of Maharashtra. The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, finding that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and there was no intention to cause death. The appeals were dismissed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellants convicted for causing death by stick blows - Court held that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and there was no intention to cause death, thus offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants are guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, and whether the conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.

Law Points

  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
  • Section 304 Part II IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Common intention
  • Stick assault
  • Absence of intention to cause death
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 129

Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2004

2017-10-30

Rohit B. Deo, J.

Shri Vinay Dahat (holding for Shri J.B. Kasat) for Appellant, Shri H.R. Dhumale, APP for Respondent/State

Sudhakar Jarjan Pawar and Balidas Nikam Pawar

State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Remedy Sought

Appellants seek acquittal or reduction of sentence

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to five years RI and fine

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, acquitted of Section 302 IPC

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC is sustainable Whether the appellants are guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued for acquittal or reduction of sentence State argued in support of conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The injuries inflicted by the appellants were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and there was no intention to cause death, thus the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC and not Section 302 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

Both appeals seek to assail the judgment and order dated 17.01.2004 in Sessions Trial 92/1997 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by and under which, the appellants are convicted of offence punishable under section 304 PartII read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to payment of fine of Rs.250/ each.

Procedural History

The appellants were tried in Sessions Trial 92/1997 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court convicted them under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC on 17.01.2004. Both appellants filed separate appeals (Criminal Appeal 87/2004 and 161/2004) before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The appeals were heard and decided on 30.10.2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 304 Part II, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellants for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder in Stick Assault Case. Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for causing death of deceased by stick blows, acquitted of murder under Section...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Land Restoration Case Under Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 — Possession of Non-Tribal Purchaser Protected Due to Laches and Limitation. The court held that an application under Sect...