Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard a criminal appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 10th March 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 213 of 1993. The trial court had acquitted the two respondents, Mahendra Babab Adhav and Kailas Dnyanoba Chavan, of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted them under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing each to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 7,000/-. The State sought to challenge the acquittal under the graver charges. The prosecution case centered on an incident that occurred on 28th November 1992. The respondents were frequent visitors to a tea house run by Khangarmal Sundesha. Earlier, they had demanded Rs. 500/- from Khangarmal’s son Paras to secure the release of a jailed friend, which Paras refused. On the night of the incident, after closing the hotel, Khangarmal, his son Deepak, his uncle Hansraj, and his nephew Shantilal were walking home. At Adinath Chowk, the respondents accosted them, enquired about Paras’s whereabouts, and respondent no. 1 abused them. A quarrel ensued, during which respondent no. 1 assaulted Shantilal with a sharp-edged rambo knife on the right side of his head. Deepak suffered a finger injury while intervening. Shantilal was taken to the hospital and later died. The medical evidence, as deposed by Dr. Laxmikant Bade, showed that Shantilal had suffered one stab injury on the left lateral side of the head along with contusion and lineal abrasion, with corresponding internal injuries. There was no evidence of multiple fatal injuries or a premeditated design. The trial court, after scrutiny, concluded that the respondents lacked the intention to commit murder and that their act of assault was aimed at extracting money, thus falling under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and perusing the entire record, found that the trial court had evaluated the evidence thoroughly and its view was a reasonably probable one. It held that no irregularity, illegality, or error vitiated the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the connected revision application was also dismissed. The acquittal under the murder charge was upheld, affirming the conviction under the lesser offence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Appellate Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference under Section 378 CrPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378(1) – High Court, after perusing evidence, found that Trial Court assessed entire evidence in detail and its view was a reasonable probable view; no irregularity, illegality or error committed – Held, appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld (Paras 1, 6-7). B) Criminal Law – Murder – Intention – Distinction between Section 302 and Section 324 IPC – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 324, 323 read with 34 – Accused demanded money from deceased's brother, on refusal, accosted family and assaulted deceased with knife; deceased suffered one stab injury on head and other minor injuries; medical evidence did not suggest intention to kill; motive was to extract money, not to murder – Held, conviction under Sections 324 and 323 IPC proper, acquittal under Section 302 IPC justified (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court's acquittal of the respondents under Sections 302, 341, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was justified and whether the conviction under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal under Sections 302, 341, 504 read with 34 IPC upheld. Revision Application also dismissed.
Law Points
- intention to murder
- reasonable probable view
- scope of appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC
- conviction under Section 324 IPC
- assault with dangerous weapon
- single injury
- absence of premeditation
