Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Intent and Inconsistent Medical Evidence. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as death caused by accidental fall, not intentional strangulation.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 87
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sumitra Madavi, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara for the murder of Meenakshi Dahiwale under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 10.03.2011, the appellant was selling illicit liquor, and a mob led by the complainant and deceased confronted her. The appellant allegedly threw chili powder, caught the deceased's hair, and pressed her neck, causing her death. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the medical evidence (postmortem report) showed the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, but the injuries were inconsistent with manual strangulation. The court found that the deceased likely died from a fall during the scuffle, not from intentional strangulation. The court held that the appellant did not have the intention to cause death, but her act of throwing chili powder and catching hair was done with knowledge that it could cause death. The court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing her to the period already undergone (about 7 years) and reducing the fine.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction set aside - Death caused by accidental fall during scuffle, not intentional strangulation - Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution case - Held that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-15).

B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part II IPC - Act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without intention - Appellant's act of throwing chili powder and catching hair did not indicate intention to cause death - Held that the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC (Paras 16-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

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 II IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone (about 7 years) and fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Law Points

  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 304 Part II IPC
  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
  • Lack of intention
  • Medical evidence inconsistency
  • Benefit of doubt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 159

Criminal Appeal (APEAL) No. 580 of 2013

2018-07-19

P.N. Deshmukh, M.G. Giratkar

Shri D.R. Khandare (for appellant), Smt. K.S. Joshi (for respondent/State)

Smt. Sumitra w/o Namdeo Madavi

State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 IPC

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for murder of Meenakshi Dahiwale

Previous Decisions

Sessions Judge, Bhandara convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment on 06.09.2012 in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2011

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on evidence Whether the appellant had intention to cause death

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the death was accidental and there was no intention to kill Prosecution argued that the appellant intentionally strangled the deceased

Ratio Decidendi

The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case of intentional strangulation; the death was likely caused by a fall during the scuffle. The appellant's act did not indicate intention to cause death, but only knowledge that it could cause death, thus offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2011 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer RI for one month. Accused Sumitra thrown chili powder. Accused Sumitra caught hold hair of Meenakshi Dahiwale by one hand and pressed her neck by another hand. Meenakshi Dahiwale became unconscious and died on the spot.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara on 06.09.2012. She appealed to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court reserved judgment on 12.07.2018 and pronounced on 19.07.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 304 Part II
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Intent and Inconsistent Medical Evidence. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as death caused by accidental fall, not intentional strangulation.
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Correction of Typographical Error in Complainant's Deposition in Criminal Case Under Sections 498A, 504, 114 IPC — Held That Clerical Error in Examination-in-Chief Can Be Rectified to Ensure Fair Trial, Trial Court Directe...