Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahesh Rajaram Gondare, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 263 of 2017 for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000, with default imprisonment of three months. He appealed against the conviction and sentence. The prosecution case began with a station diary entry (Exh.67) recorded at Police Station Kalamna on the date of incident. The appellant had struck the deceased on the head with a wooden stick, causing a fatal injury. The medical evidence from Dr. Vishwajeet Wankhede (PW6) established that the death was due to excessive bleeding from the head injury. The appellant's counsel argued that the injury did not warrant a ten-year sentence and that the prosecution failed to prove intention to commit murder. The State countered that the death resulted from the injury and the trial court correctly convicted and sentenced the appellant. The High Court, after hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, held that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the appellant had knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Single blow causing death - The appellant struck the deceased with a wooden stick on the head, resulting in death due to excessive bleeding. The court held that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the appellant had knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death, thus falling under Part I of Section 304 IPC. The sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was found proportionate and not excessive. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC and the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment upheld.
Law Points
- Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
- Section 304 Part I IPC
- Single blow
- Intention to cause death
- Knowledge of likely death
- Sentence adequacy
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 145
Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2018
Mr. C. R. Thakur for appellant, Mr. A. M. Joshi, A.P.P. for respondent/State
Mahesh S/o Rajaram Gondare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal or reduction of sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant in Sessions Case No. 263 of 2017 on 14.5.2018.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC is sustainable.
Whether the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment is excessive.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel argued that the injury did not warrant ten years sentence and prosecution failed to prove intention to commit murder.
State argued that death was due to excessive bleeding from head injury, and trial court correctly convicted and sentenced.
Ratio Decidendi
The injury inflicted by the appellant was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the appellant had knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death, thus the offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC. The sentence of ten years is proportionate and not excessive.
Judgment Excerpts
By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 304 PartI of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
It is the submission of Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the injury appearing on the deceased, the appellant ought not to have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for Ten years.
Per contra, Mr. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State would submit that the death has occurred due to excessive bleeding and therefore, in view of the evidence of Dr. Vishwajeet Wankhede (PW6), the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304I of the Indian Penal Code and correctly inflicted measured punishment of Ten years.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 263 of 2017 on 14.5.2018. He appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 304 Part I
