{"id":166324,"date":"2008-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-04T06:06:43","modified_gmt":"2018-01-04T00:36:43","slug":"in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    Appellant :    Manik son of Ganpatrao Taiwade, aged about 38\n\n                   years, resident of Mouza Dhotiwada, Tahsil\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                   Katol, District Nagpur (Presently in jail)\n\n                   versus.\n                              \n    Respondent : The State of Maharashtra<\/pre>\n
    Mr Sudhir Malode, Advocate for appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr Y.B. Mandpe, APP for State.\n<\/p>\n
                             ______<\/p>\n
    Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 2003<\/p>\n
    Appellant :   Ramdas s\/o Shankarrao Madavi, aged about<\/p>\n
                  35 years, resident of Mouza Dhotiwada, Tahsil<\/p>\n
                  Katol, District Nagpur (Presently in Jail)<\/p>\n
    Mr Mahesh Singh, Advocate for appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr S.S. Doifode, APP for State.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         Coram : K.J. Rohee and
\n                                                 A.P. Bhangale, JJ<\/p>\n
                                     Dated : 18th September 2008<\/p>\n
    Judgment (Per A.P. Bhangale, J)<\/p>\n
    1.         By these appeals, the original accused have challenged the<\/p>\n
    judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by 2nd<\/p>\n
    Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions trial No. 670 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Upon conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read<\/p>\n
    with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants have been<\/p>\n
    sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    3000\/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six<\/p>\n
    months.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           Appellant Ramdas Shankarrao Madavi in Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
    No. 354 of 2003 is original accused no.1 while appellant Manik<\/p>\n
    Ganpatrao Taiwade in Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2003 is original<\/p>\n
    accused no.2.      Appellants are hereinafter referred to as per their<\/p>\n
    original status in sessions trial.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Accused no. 1 Ramdas and victim in this case viz. deceased<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Madhukar were related to each other while accused no.2 Manik was<\/p>\n
    their common friend, residing in village Dhotiwada. On the fateful<\/p>\n
    day, accused persons took in their company said Madhukar from his<\/p>\n
    house. After some time, Nandlal, resident of the same village, came<\/p>\n
    to PW 1 Sudhakar (elder brother of Madhukar) and informed him<\/p>\n
    that Madhukar was lying in a pool of blood      in Gondpura, village<\/p>\n
    Dhotiwada.       PW 1 Sudhakar rushed to the spot and removed<\/p>\n
    Madhukar to Primary Health Centre, Kondhali where Madhukar was<\/p>\n
    declared as brought dead.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           It appears from the evidence of PW 2 Ramkrishna that at<\/p>\n
    the relevant time, there was exchange of words between accused and<\/p>\n
    Madhukar who was in their company.        Madhukar gave a slap to<\/p>\n
    accused no. 1 Ramdas asking him as to why he (accused no.1) had<\/p>\n
    beaten his relative Kanthya. This witness separated quarrel and went<\/p>\n
    to his house. Later, he came to know through Dashrath Madavi and<\/p>\n
    Bhaurao Ivnate that accused no.1 Ramdas had inflicted knife blow to<\/p>\n
    Madhukar.     Further,   it is disclosed from the evidence of PW 3<\/p>\n
    Homeshwar that he followed the trio and saw that after touching the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
    feet of Madhukar near the house of Dhanraj Patte, accused no. 1<\/p>\n
    Ramdas inflicted knife blow in the chest of Madhukar who started<\/p>\n
    running and fell down near the house of Krishna Madavi from where<\/p>\n
    PW 4 Ganesh with the help of some persons, brought Madhukar near<\/p>\n
    School.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           PW 1 Sudhakar Madavi, brother of deceased Madhukar<\/p>\n
    lodged report of incident to Police Station, Kondhali on 15.8.2000 at<\/p>\n
    about 03.00 o’ clock.\n<\/p>\n
                            Dead body of Madhukar was sent for post-\n<\/p>\n
    mortem examination. Dr Misbahul Haque Ansari (PW 11) performed<\/p>\n
    post-mortem examination.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          On the basis of information lodged by PW 1 Sudhakar,<\/p>\n
    investigation was undertaken by PSI Ramesh Deshmukh (PW 14)<\/p>\n
    charge-sheet was placed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,<\/p>\n
    Katol giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 670 of 2000 against        accused<\/p>\n
    persons.   The accused were charged on the ground that they, in<\/p>\n
    furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of<\/p>\n
    Madhukar Madavi by giving knife blow in his chest and thereby<\/p>\n
    committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    of the Indian Penal Code.        The accused pleaded not guilty and<\/p>\n
    claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to substantiate<\/p>\n
    the case.    Accused denied     their culpability   in their        statements<\/p>\n
    recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            The prosecution rested upon direct evidence of PW 2<\/p>\n
    Ramkrishna, PW 3 Homeshwar, PW 4 Ganesh, PW 5 Sahudas and PW<\/p>\n
    6 Liladhar<\/p>\n
                     apart from panch witnesses, CA report and medical<\/p>\n
    evidence of Dr Ansari (PW 11).          The learned trial Judge accepted<\/p>\n
    evidence qua the appellants and held them guilty for having<\/p>\n
    committed murder of Madhukar Madavi and on conviction under<\/p>\n
    Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced<\/p>\n
    them as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          We have heard learned Advocate Shri Sudhir Malode for<\/p>\n
    appellant No.1;      and   learned Advocate     Shri Mahesh Singh               for<\/p>\n
    appellant no. 2; as also learned A.P.P. S\/Shri Y B Mandpe and<\/p>\n
    S.S.Doifode, representing the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         The evidence of    homicidal death is       revealed from the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
    evidence of PW 11-Dr.Ansari, who conducted autopsy           on the dead<\/p>\n
    body of deceased Madhukar.       According to Dr.Ansari, she found a<\/p>\n
    stab injury located at left front side of chest which was 8 cm. x 4<\/p>\n
    cm. cavity deep between       second and fourth rib; vertical                in<\/p>\n
    direction 2 cm. above and 2 cm. below is incised wound described as<\/p>\n
    muscle deep margins clean cut;     lower angle clean cut and upper<\/p>\n
    angle contuse on left side; third rib fractured, margins clean cut,<\/p>\n
    fourth rib upper half cut margins clean cut.      The witness opined<\/p>\n
    that injury was ante-mortem. She noted following two injuries and<\/p>\n
    found two litres of blood and blood clots in thorasic cavity:-\n<\/p>\n
    (i)       pericardium ; cut present;\n             \n\n\n    (ii)      stab injury right ventricle 2 cm. in length\/ cavity deep;\n          \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Thus, the Doctor’s finding furnished medical evidence that external<\/p>\n
    injury was corresponding to internal injury     (i) and (ii) and that<\/p>\n
    cause of death was shock due to stab wound      and the injuries were<\/p>\n
    sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death               and,<\/p>\n
    furthermore, that the injuries were possible    by knife (Article 9).\n<\/p>\n
    The medical evidence also clearly indicates that above injuries noted<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
    were the result of a single blow only.    Although alternative possibility<\/p>\n
    is suggested to Dr.Ansari        that    a person running          and falling<\/p>\n
    forcefully on a sharp object may suffer such injury, we do not find<\/p>\n
    enough ground to believe such a possibility in view of direct ocular<\/p>\n
    evidence in this       case.    After considering    post-mortem            notes<\/p>\n
    (Exh.50) in the light of Dr. Ansari’s evidence,      we have no doubt in<\/p>\n
    our mind        that    the prosecution has succeeded in establishing<\/p>\n
    homicidal death of Madhukar beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         Turning now to the direct and circumstantial evidence led<\/p>\n
    in this case,     we have scrutinised it by     giving our anxious and<\/p>\n
    thoughtful consideration in the light of rival contentions.              PW 1 –\n<\/p>\n
    Sudhakar,       threw light upon genus     of the incident. According to<\/p>\n
    him, both the accused had come at about 7.30 p.m.             on 14.8.2000<\/p>\n
    and had called deceased Madhukar         for some work.       Madhukar had<\/p>\n
    gone with A\/1 Ramdas and A\/2 Manik towards school. Later PW<\/p>\n
    1 Sudhakar came to know from one Nandlal about the incident that<\/p>\n
    A\/1 Ramdas had given           knife blow to Madhukar.            The witness<\/p>\n
    frankly   admitted      in cross-examination that there was no enmity<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
    between A\/1 Ramdas and Madhukar and that they were on good<\/p>\n
    talking terms.   It also appears that A\/1 Ramdas had taken Madhukar<\/p>\n
    by “friendly style”.     Contents of oral report (Exh.17)           which was<\/p>\n
    lodged by PW 1          Sudhakar      on 15.8.2000 at Kondhali Police<\/p>\n
    Station also corroborates the evidence given           in Court by him.\n<\/p>\n
    According to PW 2-Ramkrishna on 14.8.2000 about 8.00 p.m.,                      he<\/p>\n
    had witnessed          exchange of    words between      A\/1 Ramdas and<\/p>\n
    Madhukar ( deceased) in front        of the house of one Dhanraj Patte.\n<\/p>\n
    PW 2 Ramkrishna had seen Madhukar giving                 slaps to appellant<\/p>\n
    no.1 questioning       him as to why appellant no.1 had beaten Kanthya<\/p>\n
    (relative of Madhukar). PW 2 Ramkrishna             had intervened in the<\/p>\n
    quarrel and taken Madhukar up to a shop and then left for his<\/p>\n
    house.     Later on, PW 2 Ramkrishna came             to know about the<\/p>\n
    incident    that A\/1 Ramdas          gave knife blow to Madhukar.             The<\/p>\n
    witness clarified in cross-examination that there was no hot exchange<\/p>\n
    of words between Madhukar and appellant no.1, when                he saw A\/1<\/p>\n
    Ramdas and Madhukar.          PW 3 Homeshwar deposed that he had<\/p>\n
    followed Madhukar ; A\/1 Ramdas            and A\/2 Manik ( appellant no.2)<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
    when they went together in friendly manner.         When they reached<\/p>\n
    near the house of Dhanraj      Patte,   A\/1 Ramdas was seen paying<\/p>\n
    respect at the feet of Madhukar and thereafter asked him to count<\/p>\n
    persons     there and     gave knife blow to the chest of Madhukar<\/p>\n
    (victim),   who started     running and fell down near the house of<\/p>\n
    Krishna Madavi.   PW 3 -Homeshwar        did not try to intervene nor<\/p>\n
    called for help. But he cannot be disbelieved merely for this reason<\/p>\n
    as one may out of fear of the assailant, choose not to intervene or to<\/p>\n
    raise shouts   after witnessing a stabbing      incident one may leave<\/p>\n
    the spot without making      hue and cry.     There cannot be            a set<\/p>\n
    reaction from an eyewitness. The statement of PW 3 Homeshwar<\/p>\n
    was also recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol<\/p>\n
    under section 164 Cr.P.C. and we find ample corroboration to the<\/p>\n
    evidence deposed by PW 3.       Furthermore, PW 4 Ganesh             had also<\/p>\n
    seen both the accused catching hold of Madhukar when Madhukar<\/p>\n
    gave slaps to A\/1 Ramdas ; A\/2 Manik        instigated him and then A\/1<\/p>\n
    Ramdas      took out knife     and gave knife blow to          the chest of<\/p>\n
    deceased Madhukar.        Madhukar ran down chased by A\/1 Ramdas<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
    while A\/2 Manik went to his house while Madhukar fell down near<\/p>\n
    the house of Krishna Madavi. The statement of PW 4 Ganesh was<\/p>\n
    recorded u\/s 164 of Cr.P.C. by learned JMFC Katol on 7.9.2000.\n<\/p>\n
    We do      find corroboration in respect of material         particulars of<\/p>\n
    incident that A\/2 Manik        had instigated A\/1 Ramdas           to assault<\/p>\n
    Madhukar and had run away            after A\/1 Ramdas       assaulted         on<\/p>\n
    Madhukar’s chest with knife.       For the reasons stated above, we are<\/p>\n
    not prepared to<\/p>\n
                       give much importance to omissions brought out in<\/p>\n
    the course of cross-examination, more particularly bearing in mind<\/p>\n
    that rustic witness from village      may be overawed         by the court<\/p>\n
    atmosphere and may be led to give certain admissions in the nature<\/p>\n
    of omissions or contradiction which may or may not affect root of<\/p>\n
    the prosecution’s case.   The facts and circumstances are needed to<\/p>\n
    be considered in totality.       PW 5 Sahudas was declared hostile<\/p>\n
    witness and chose not to support prosecution case. PW 6-Liladhar<\/p>\n
    had seen A\/1 Ramdas stabbing Madhukar with knife and when<\/p>\n
    Madhukar     started running away A\/1 Ramdas had followed him,<\/p>\n
    Madhukar had fallen down near house of Kisan Madavi.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
    12.       We do find ample corroboration to the ocular evidence in<\/p>\n
    medical evidence of PW 11 -Dr.Ansari as well as in the evidence of<\/p>\n
    recovery of weapon of offence under Panchnama (Exh.55).                  PW 13<\/p>\n
    Subhash deposed that in his presence A\/1 Ramdas           had led police to<\/p>\n
    the field of one Patil towards Dhotiwada         and had taken out and<\/p>\n
    produced knife (Art.9) from a channal ( embankment).                 Chemical<\/p>\n
    Analyser’s report (Exh.74)       in respect of viscera    preserved         from<\/p>\n
    victim Madhukar’s body
\n                              ig do indicate that ethyl alcohol      was present<\/p>\n
    indicating that prior to the incident,       Madhukar had           consumed<\/p>\n
    alcohol, noted as 140, 106 and 122 milligrams            per 100 milliliter<\/p>\n
    found in viscera and blood sample of deceased sent for CA’s report.\n<\/p>\n
    The finding by C.A. do furnish reason to believe             that deceased<\/p>\n
    Madhukar might have slapped A\/1 Ramdas                   while under the<\/p>\n
    influence of alcohol,    giving rise to fury between         them and A\/2<\/p>\n
    Manik who instigated A\/1 Ramdas that Madhukar shall be beaten.\n<\/p>\n
    The panchnama      about scene of offence (Exh.38)                  indicating<\/p>\n
    presence of trace of blood      at various places also corroborate direct<\/p>\n
    evidence that deceased tried to run away.      Further, corroboration is<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
    seen from the CA’s report (Exh. 75) indicating that clothes of the<\/p>\n
    victim recovered;       earth sample (Exh.6) ; weapon               recovered<\/p>\n
    (art.9);   stones    recovered from spot (Exh.9 and 11) were found<\/p>\n
    stained with human blood of Group “A”.\n<\/p>\n
    13.        With such overwhelming        evidence to indicate culpability<\/p>\n
    of accused nos. 1 and 2 for assaulting Madhukar in furtherance of<\/p>\n
    their common intention shared between them,           we cannot accept<\/p>\n
    alternative possibility suggested by defence counsel that Nilkanth or<\/p>\n
    Kanthya    might have assaulted        deceased Madhukar. Prosecution<\/p>\n
    has    examined PW 10 -Nilkanth     also who once had quarreled with<\/p>\n
    the deceased to overrule     such alternative    possibility.          Another<\/p>\n
    criticism from defence counsel is that witnesses who deposed having<\/p>\n
    witnessed the incident, were relatives and neighbours and, therefore,<\/p>\n
    interested witnesses. This contention also does not impress us. In our<\/p>\n
    opinion, evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside because<\/p>\n
    they would never spare the real culprits. Another contention is that<\/p>\n
    there are omissions or discrepancies      which can uproot the cart of<\/p>\n
    the prosecution     case. We are unable to accept the argument that<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
    prosecution story is totally shattered in cross-examination. Another<\/p>\n
    contention is that the prosecution ought to have examined                   more<\/p>\n
    witnesses, namely, Dashrath Madavi, Bhaurao Ivnate; Dhanraj Patte,<\/p>\n
    Manohar     Patte   etc. and that        non-examination      is fatal to the<\/p>\n
    prosecution case.    We cannot accept this contention also because, it<\/p>\n
    is quality of the evidence and not the quantity that matters.                 The<\/p>\n
    prosecution is not expected to examine all and sundry                        once<\/p>\n
    prosecution has unfolded its material narrative evidence on facts that<\/p>\n
    accused nos. 1 and 2        in furtherance of their common intention,<\/p>\n
    had assaulted victim Madhukar.            Even assuming for the sake of<\/p>\n
    argument that some more witnesses could have been examined by the<\/p>\n
    prosecution nothing prevented the defence to apply to the trial Court<\/p>\n
    to get them summoned as essential           court witnesses.            Defence<\/p>\n
    cannot dictate as to which      witnesses shall be examined by the<\/p>\n
    prosecution. The remedy available under section 311 Cr.P.C.                   was<\/p>\n
    neither applied for nor availed of by the defence.      In our opinion, the<\/p>\n
    prosecution could not have been compelled to examine witnesses<\/p>\n
    dropped or cancelled by it unless ordered by the trial Court. For the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    aforesaid reasons,     as a rule it is discretion of the Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
    concerned to      lead as much evidence as is necessary to unfold the<\/p>\n
    prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
    14.        Lastly,    it is contended        that the incident had arisen due<\/p>\n
    to hot exchange of words without any premeditation and a single<\/p>\n
    stab injury was caused on the spur of the moment and there was no<\/p>\n
    intention to cause death or to commit murder. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
    Mr.Mahesh Singh relied upon
\n                                ig     the judgment in the case of             Deepak<\/p>\n
    Bhikaji vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> reported in 2003 (1) Crimes 191<\/p>\n
    (SC).   We have gone through the citation. It is true that when an<\/p>\n
    act is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat<\/p>\n
    of passion arising from sudden quarrel without the offender having<\/p>\n
    acted in cruel or unusual manner, the offence would be culpable<\/p>\n
    homicide not amounting to murder. In the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
    the present case,     we do find    from the genus of the incident that<\/p>\n
    deceased Madhukar        had accompanied with accused nos. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
    in friendly     manner. Although A\/1 Ramdas           may have         carried the<\/p>\n
    knife in      his pocket, or near waist side,       there is no material on<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
    record to establish    positively   that it was a deadly or dangerous<\/p>\n
    weapon and forcibly used while causing injury.          It appears         that<\/p>\n
    deceased had gone with A\/1 and A\/2 in friendly manner. There<\/p>\n
    may not be premeditation between A\/1 and A\/2,            but they shared<\/p>\n
    common intention on the spur of the moment and acted in the course<\/p>\n
    of sudden quarrel which developed on the spot. We may also infer<\/p>\n
    from the evidence that the deceased Madhukar who might have used<\/p>\n
    abusive words under the influence of alcohol.            It is one of the<\/p>\n
    special circumstances brought to our notice.    The sample of viscera<\/p>\n
    was sent for expert’s opinion and it is in evidence that ethyl alcohol<\/p>\n
    was found    present in the viscera as well as blood sample sent for<\/p>\n
    analysis, we have referred to findings and opinion disclosed from CA<\/p>\n
    report (Exh.74).      Therefore,    there is reason to believe that the<\/p>\n
    deceased must have been in drunken condition at the time of the<\/p>\n
    incident.    Such circumstance cannot be overlooked because                    a<\/p>\n
    drunken man under the influence of alcohol may talk irrelevant or<\/p>\n
    abusively    or may      behave in irresponsible manner which may<\/p>\n
    irritate immediately or provoke      even a friendly person to develop<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
    fury and incite crime before passions can cool down.                       A\/1 Ramdas<\/p>\n
    may have      got   furious      due to heat of passion and with timely<\/p>\n
    instigation from A\/2 Manik, it cannot be said that A\/1 Ramdas took<\/p>\n
    undue advantage or acted with cruelty or in an unusual manner. A<\/p>\n
    single blow    given under the circumstances indicate that offenders<\/p>\n
    did not take undue advantage.                  For these reasons which may be<\/p>\n
    considered as mitigating the penal liability, in view of the exception<\/p>\n
    (4) to section 300 IPC which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “300: MURDER:               Except in the        cases hereinafter<\/p>\n
               excepted …      ……            …….           …….    …..
\n               Exception 4 –          Culpable homicide is not murder if it<\/p>\n
               is committed without premeditation in a sudden
\n               fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel<\/p>\n
               and without                the offender having taken undue
\n               advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner…..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n               (Explanation- It is           immaterial in such cases which\n               party    offers the         provocation       or commits the first\n\n\n\n\n\n               assault.)\" ....                 ......             .......\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    15.        We must therefore conclude that Exception 4 to Section<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
    300 IPC is attracted and conviction and sentence imposed upon A\/1<\/p>\n
    Ramdas     and A\/2 Manik needs to be altered from Section 302 read<\/p>\n
    with section 34 IPC to section 304 Part I   read with section 34 IPC<\/p>\n
    and, in lieu of sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial<\/p>\n
    Court, we feel that sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years<\/p>\n
    for both for each of the accused-appellants     will meet the ends of<\/p>\n
    justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    16.<\/p>\n
               The Appeals are, therefore, allowed to aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
    However, we do not    propose to interfere with the sentence of           fine<\/p>\n
    as imposed by the trial Court     which shall be in addition to the<\/p>\n
    imprisonment as above.\n<\/p>\n
               The accused no.2 Manik who is on bail shall surrender<\/p>\n
    within four weeks to serve out the remainder of the sentence of<\/p>\n
    imprisonment. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
               JUDGE                        JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:52:43 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2003 Appellant : Manik son of Ganpatrao Taiwade, aged about 38 years, resident of Mouza Dhotiwada, Tahsil […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIn The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-04T00:36:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T00:36:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2899,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008\",\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T00:36:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-04T00:36:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T00:36:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008"},"wordCount":2899,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008","name":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T00:36:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}