1 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 659 OF 1990
1 Kashinath Punjaji Shardol, 40 yrs.
2 Shivaji Yashwant Shardol, 25 yrs.,
3 Yamaji Punjaji Shardol, 38 yrs.,
4 Vijay Kashinath Shardol, 20 yrs.
All R/o. Umrale Khoord, Taluka:Dindori,
District-Nashik ig .... Appellants
(Orig. Accused)
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. B. G. Vaidya for the Appellants/Accused.
Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM: P. B. MAJMUDAR &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 02/09/2010
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 01/10/ 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):-
This is an Appeal filed by all four Appellants/ Accused against
Conviction Order dated 28.09.1990 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1990, for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
2 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
(IPC), by holding that the prosecution has proved that all the accused in
furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of
“Kacharu” (the deceased) and accused No.4, under Section 324, voluntarily
caused grievous hurt to Ashok-Complainant.
2 The prosecution case as recorded in the impugned judgment is as
under:
“Complainant Ashok lives with his brothers Kacharu, Jaywant,
Ramchandra, mother Sonubai and father Dhulaji. His wife is Kalpana and
sister-in-law is Shantabai wife of Kacharu. Both of them live with them.
Complainant and his family owns some cattle heads. On the day of the
incident, Santosh son of Kacharu had taken the cattle for grazing. While
Santosh was grazing cattle, accused No.4 Vijay abused him. Santosh
narrated this fact to his uncle Ashok, the complainant. The complainant
therefore, went to question Vijay as to why he had abused Santosh. When
he questioned Vijay about it, Vijay again started abusing Ashok and Ashok
asked Vijay’s father to chastise Vijay. At that time, Vijay aimed a stone at
Ashok which hit him on the head. Kacharu Dhulaji, the brother of Ashok
also came there and tried to pacify them but accused No.2 Shivaji caught
hold of complainant Ashok. Then accused No.1 Kashinath, accused No.3
Yamaji and accused No.4 Vijay started assaulting Kacharu with the sticks in
their hands. In order to save himself, Kacharu started running away.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
3 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 therefore pelted stones at Kacharu. The stones hit
him on the head, hand and at different places. As a result of this, Kacharu
fell down on a way which leads to the well. The incident was seen by Rupa
Gangaram, Suka Pandu, Dagu Gangaram and others. Since Kacharu had
sustained serious injiries, complainant brought him in a Tempo to the
hospital. A report of the incident was lodged the policy. Since the medical
officer at Dindori found that the injuries sustained by Kacharu were of
serious nature, he directed Kacharu to be removed at Civil Hospital, Nashik.
Kacharu later died in the Civil hospital at Nashik. A post-mortem was
carried on the dead body. In the meanwhile, the police went to the spot of
the incident and had drawn the panchanama of the spot. They also seized
the clothes of Ashok and the deceased. After the accused were arrested,
accused No.4 Vijay made a statement that he would discover the sticks
which he had kept on the loft of his uncle’s Yamaji’s house. He actually
discovered those sticks and they were seized by the police. The clothes
seized by the police, the sticks and earth from the spot of incident were sent
to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. A charge-sheet thereafter, came to be
filed against the accused.”
3 The prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses. The witnesses
include; PW 1 Ashok, the Complainant and one of the injured; PW 2 Dr.
Jadhav, who gave first aid to the deceased and also noted the injuries on his
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
4 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
person; PW 3 Rupa and PW 4 Santosh, who is son of the deceased, are eye
witnesses. PW 5 Rambhau is the panch of the discovery panchanama, PW 6
is the PSI Gajbhiv, the Investigating Officer, PW 7 is Dr. Nehete who carried
out the postmortem. The spot panchanama is at Exh. 27. The inquest
panchanama is at Exh. 28 and the seizure panchanamas are at Exh. 29 and
30. No witness was examined in defence.
4 The death of Kacharu was homicidal, PW 2 Dr. Jadhav and PW 7 Dr.
Nehete, who carried out the postmortem on 04/02/1990 between 8.00 to
9.00 a.m. confirmed the same, based upon the following injuries:-
“1) Sutured wound over fronto-temporal region extending
upto parietal region left side. 3” in length. Swelling was
positive. The would was obliquely placed.
2) Sutured wound over left face near lateral canthus. It was
1″ length. Red in colour and there was swelling.
3) Abrasion on left side forehead. 2″ x ½” Red in colour and
it was irregular.
4) Sutured wound on posterior side of left forearm. It was
2″ in length. It was obliquely placed and swelling was
positive. There was a simple fracture of left ulna bone.
5) Abrasion over anterior side of upper arm (left) ½” x ½”.
He further deposed that all these injuries were ante-mortem and
might have been caused by hard and blunt object such as stick
and stone. He further has stated that on internal examination,
he found following injuries:
1) Echymosis on left fronto-temporal & parietal region.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
5 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
Blackish in colour.
2) Dipressed fracture of skull of left frontal temporal and
parietal bone."
He further stated and given opinion that cause of death was shock
due to intra-cranial haemorrhage with a fracture of skull bone of left side
with injury to brain matter and fracture of left ulna. All these injuries were
collectively and singularly enough to cause death in ordinary course of
nature. P.W. 7 stated that injury No.1 itself was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. In the cross-examination he agreed that
injury nos. 2 to 5 collectively will not in the ordinary course of nature cause
death.
5 As alleged, A-4 Vijay stated to PW 4 Santosh that his uncle’s wife
Kalpana was his wife. The prosecution case was of abuse. PW 4 Santosh
narrated the same to PW-1, Ashok-the Complainant. PW 4 went to A-4
Vijay and A-1 Kashinath’s place and objected to the said statement made by
Vijay. The quarrel started suddenly. PW 1 Ashok, (husband of Kalpana)
who was also injured, stated that A-4 Vijay pelted stone which hit on his
head. Kacharu (the deceased) came there. A-1 Kashinath and A-3 Yamaji
went inside and brought sticks and assaulted Kacharu also. A-2 Shivaji
caught hold PW 1 Ashok at that time. A-4 Vijay pelted stone on the head of
Kacharu and ran away towards the eastern side towards the well. A-1
Kashinath and A-3 Yamaji followed Kacharu. It is stated that A-4 Vijay
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
6 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
while running towards the well turned back and seen Kacharu following
him, again pelted stone which hit Kacharu on head. Kachru fell down.
Ashok, after releasing himself from the clutches of A-2 Shivaji went to save
Kacharu. As per PW 1 Ashok, all the accused again started assaulting to
Kacharu while he fell down. When PW 1 Ashok reached to Kacharu, all the
accused ran away. Kacharu died when undergoing treatment at hospital.
PW 1 Ashok in cross-examination stated that he was at the distance
of 50 to 60 fts. from the other accused when A-2 Shivaji caught hold to
him. The incident over within five minutes. People had gathered when the
incident was going on. Police Patil was present at the time of incident. No
person from the gathered people was examined including the police Patil.
6 PW 3, Rupa saw A-4 Vijay pelted stone at different time at Ashok and
at the deceased. She could not notice that Vijay was running ahead of
Kacharu. The deceased fell down after sustaining injury on the head. She
stated that when she went to the spot more than 50 people had gathered.
She stated that A-1 Kashinath and A-3 Yamaji assaulted Kacharu with sticks.
She stated that A-2 Shivaji caught hold Ashok initially but later on went
near to Kacharu to assault. She stated that A-1 Kashinath, A-2 Shivaji and
A-3 Yamaji assaulted Kacharu with sticks and even after he fell down, A-1
Kashinath and A-3 Yamaji pelted stones also. As per this witness, A-4 Vijay
pelted stones by which the deceased had sustained head injury and fell
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
7 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
down. PW 3 Rupa further stated that Kachru stood up and ran towards the
well and A-1 Kashinath and A-3 Yamaji followed him. As these A-1, A-2
and A-3 assaulted with sticks, thereafter Kacharu fell unconscious.
7 PW 3 Rupa had stated in her cross-examination that 50 people were
gathered in between the way of the house. She had to go through the
crowd of the people who were standing there. When she went to the spot,
she saw Kacharu was being assaulted by sticks. From the above, it is
difficult to accept the evidence of Rupa to the extent that she saw the
incident in full. The fact that she need to go through the people near the
spot itself means she was not in position to see the incident or condition of
“Kacharu” clearly and the individual roles of these accused.
8 PW 4 Santosh, a minor son of the deceased at the time, stated that
A-4 Vijay started abusing Ashok-Complainant and then pelted stones at
Ashok. He also stated that Kacharu came there and intervened. A-2 Shivaji
caught hold of Ashok and then A-1 Kashinath and A-3 Yamaji started
assaulting Kacharu with sticks. The deceased (his father) started running
from the spot behind A-4 Vijay. He also stated that A-4 Vijay turned back
and pelted stones at Kacharu who after sustaining injury on head fell down.
He unable to explain why A-4 Vijay started running towards the well. He
stated that his father was assaulted by stick by A-1 Kashinath and A-3
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
8 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
Yamaji. A-2 Shivaji left Ashok and also assaulted Kacharu with sticks, at
that time Kacharu was not unconscious though injured. He also stated that
the deceased and A-4 Vijay both running away towards the well which was
about 40 fts. from the spot.
In the cross-examination he stated that he did not tell his father that
A-4 Vijay had said about the Kalpana being his wife. He narrated the same
to Ashok, who was shouting and therefore, Kacharu and he came out of the
house. He saw Kacharu (the deceased) following A-4 Vijay. It means, it is
doubtful whether he had seen assaults by A-1 and A-3 by sticks on Kacharu
at first instance. Nobody intervened. He saw the crowd of people when he
came out of the house. The deceased and A-4 Vijay were at the distance of
200 to 250 fts from the house when he saw them running. He also
admitted that his view was obstructed on account of people who were
standing there. The presence of Santosh was not noticed by the Rupa or
vice versa. This witness also cannot be relied upon to convict all the
accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The statement of
this witness cannot be accepted and relied upon with regard to the
individual roles played by all these accused; except he saw his father fell
down after sustaining injury as A-4 Vijay turned back and pelted stone. The
injuries, even if any, on the body of the deceased as recorded in the
evidence of the Doctor, except injury No.1 were not sufficient to cause
death. Therefore, even if there are subsequent assaults by A-1 Kashinath
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
9 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
and A-3 Yamaji and later on A-2 Shivaji, in the present facts and
circumstances, it cannot be stated to be vital to cause death. PW 4 Santosh
also admitted that his view was obstructed by the people who were
standing there. There is no justification whatsoever given on record why
the witnesses from the crowd were not examined by the prosecution though
they were witnessing the incident throughout which went on for about 4 to
5 minutes. Therefore, nothing is clear from the evidence of these two
witnesses PW 1 Ashok and PW 3 Rupa, when Kacharu fell unconscious, the
vital head injury was caused because of stone pelted by A-4 Vijay or
because of lathi assault by A-1, A-2 and A-3.
9 There was no reason for A-4 Vijay to run away from the spot if all
had intention or planned to kill “Kacharu”. It appears that A-4 Vijay was
running ahead to save himself from the assault of Kacharu or Ashok. The
deceased was following A-4 Vijay towards the same directions as he was
also running to save himself from Ashok and/or Kacharu. There is a
possibility that A-4 Vijay might be apprehending that Kacharu following
him to assault and therefore, to save himself, he turned around and pelted
stone which hit at Kacharu’s head and he fell down and became
unconscious. Therefore, but for sudden provocation, it was never intended
even by A-4 Vijay to kill the deceased. A-1 Kashinath, A-2 Shivaji and A-3
Yamaji also followed Kacharu as he was running after A-4 Vijay, after
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
10 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
sudden incident/provocation as they might have thought Kacharu was
running after A-4 Vijay to assault him. It appears that, they also ran after
Kacharu to save A-4 Vijay from the apprehended attack of Kacharu. It is,
therefore, clear that Ashok went to inquire about the Vijay’s statement and
because of provocation, the incident happened. Accused never planned to
kill Kacharu with a common intention. There is no explanation on record
about the injury on person of A-1 Kashinath and A-2 Shivaji.
10
From the evidence of PW 1, 3 and 4, it is clear that about more than
50 people gathered when the incident was going on, including beating as
well as pelting stones at Kacharu. No other, except related/ interested
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW 4 Santosh stated in
the cross-examination that his father Kacharu and Vijay ran distance of
about 200 to 250 fts. He also stated that his view was obstructed on
account of people who were standing there. Therefore, his evidence cannot
be relied. There is no evidence on record to show that at what stage
Kacharu died, whether immediately after the stone hit on his head thrown
by A-4 Vijay and/or after the alleged assault by A-1,A-2 and A-3, as the
incident was over within 5 minutes, in front of a number of people. Even as
per PW 1 Ashok, A-1 and A-3 assaulted Kacharu with sticks. At that time he
was alive and ran towards the well. In view of this, we are of the view that
it is difficult to accept the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
11 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
that all the accused have committed murder with common intention or it is
a pre-planned murder. Looking into the injury report on record, it appears
that the deceased sustained fatal injury on head when A-4 Vijay turned back
and pelted stones and the deceased Kacharu fell down on the spot, beating
even if any, considering injury No.1 on his head, were not fatal. In the
present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that
deceased died because of injury No.1 on the head of Kacharu which was
resulted as A-4 Vijay pelted stone and the deceased had sustained injury on
head.
11 The Apex Court in Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2009 AIR
SCW 6710, has reiterated and considered to invoke the doctrine of
provocation and self defence. If an incident took place at the spur of
moment, and there is no intention or pre-meditation in the mind of the
accused to inflict such injuries to the deceased which is likely to cause death
in ordinary course of nature. The incident happened because of the
provocation so recorded above and as in defence and under apprehension
A-4 Vijay pelted stone which hit on the head of the deceased, and as other
accused ran after Kacharu to save Vijay and even if assaulted and by that
time the deceased was already fell down and became unconscious as hit by
the stone on the head. Merely because the accused were there together but
there is no sufficient material to connect which injury specifically caused by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
12 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
which accused, by which weapon and at what time. There is no connecting
material to show that injury No.1 caused by other accused, by lathi, except
A-4 Vijay by stone. Therefore, we are of the view that the conviction so
ordered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC to all the accused is
unsustainable. Section 304, Part-II of IPC in the present case applies as A-4
Vijay had inflicted though in the hit of moment to save himself and inflicted
blow on the head of Kacharu because of which he fell down immediately
and became unconscious on the spot. Even as per the doctor, this injury No.
1 is sufficient to ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is no
material to show that it was pre-meditated or planned to attack or assault.
In Jagrup Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1981) SCC 616 the Court has
altered the conviction of the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304
Part II of IPC and the same was done in Gurmail Singh and Ors. Vs. State
of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC, 185 and Gurmukh Singh (Supra).
12 It is necessary to consider the basic and original reason of the
occurrence in such cases. The learned Judge has not considered the same.
The first and second assault cannot be read in isolation by overlooking the
background and the genesis of the events. Though referred but without
dealing in detail, the learned Judge has rejected the pleas of self defence
and of sudden provocation, which are relevant to decide the murder case
based upon the material and evidence on record. Even as per the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
13 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
prosecution, Ashok went to the place of accused first, where Kacharu also
came, the accused never went to their place to attack them. The
background and the sudden events resulted into the death of Kacharu.
13 It is settled that though accused does not plead self-defence and or a
case of sudden provocation, the Court can consider such facts and pleas
based upon the material on record even in Appeal against the order of
conviction before passing the final judgment. The supreme Court has
maintained the order of acquittal, on the following principles, in [(2010) 2
SCC 333, Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.]
i) ….
ii) ....
iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the
right of self-defence into operation. In other words, it
is not necessary that there should be an actual
commission of the offence in order to give rise to the
right of private defence. It is enough if the accused
apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and
it is likely to be committed if the right of private
defence is not exercised.
iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a
reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous
with the duration of such apprehension.
v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to
modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical
exactitude.
vi) .....
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
14 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead
self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the
same arises from the material on record.
viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right
of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.
ix) ......
x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of
losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence
inflict any harm even extending to death on his
assailant either when the assault is attempted or
directly threatened.”
14
There is nothing to show that there was any previous enmity between
the parties. The incident took place suddenly and there was no common
intention of the accused persons and there was no conspiracy to kill the
Kachru. There is a material to show that even the accused were injured.
The death as recorded above, was caused because of injury No.1 only.
There is nothing to point out who had caused injury No.1 out of these 4
accused. The trial court has convicted all the accused under Section 302
read with Section 34 of IPC. There is no clear recording of the reasons with
regard to the individual role played by these 4 accused. In above
background and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we
have to consider Section 304, Part II of IPC.
15 In view of above, therefore, so far as A-4 Vijay is concerned, we
convert the sentence from 302 of IPC to 304 Part II of IPC and sentence him
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
15 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and impose fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) instead of Rs.100/- in default to
suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 months, more. A-4 is also convicted of
the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. However, no separate
sentence is imposed since he is convicted and sentenced of the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
16 So far as A-2 Shivaji is concerned, in view of above reasoning itself,
as we found that there is no direct evidence to connect that the alleged
subsequent assault by Lathi caused the death of Kacharu as he fell down
immediately because of stone pelted by A-4 Vijay. As recorded, he caught
hold Ashok and he was standing quite away when A-4 Vijay pelted stone at
Kacharu at second time.
17 So far as A-1 Kashinath and A-3 Yamaji are concerned, it is clear from
the evidence that after fatal injury on the head of the deceased and after he
fell down, A-2 Shivaji and A-3 Yamaji ran and assaulted the deceased with
sticks but by that time the deceased was already fell down and unconscious.
In spite of earlier attack of Lathi or stone, Kacharu was alive and running
after A-4 Vijay and/or towards the well. A-1, A-2 and A-3 therefore, ran
after the Kacharu as he was running after A-4 Vijay probably with
apprehension that Kacharu might to assault A-4 Vijay. A-4 Vijay also turned
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::
16 apeal.659.90.sxw
ssm
around and pelted stone on that apprehension and therefore, this
provocation and self defence / attack in our view, cannot be stated to be
planned or intentional attack to kill the deceased. However, considering
the above facts and circumstances itself, we set aside the order of conviction
under Section 302 of the IPC and convict them under Section 322, 325 of
IPC and direct them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine
of Rs.500/- to each of them (A-1, A-2 and A-3) and in default to suffer 3
months rigorous imprisonment, subject to set off, if any.
18 As all the accused are on bail, in view of above conviction, the bail
bonds are cancelled. They should surrender to the bail to complete the
sentence.
19 The Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:30:02 :::