{"id":235053,"date":"2005-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005"},"modified":"2015-01-20T04:35:33","modified_gmt":"2015-01-19T23:05:33","slug":"subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  541 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSubhash Shamrao Pachunde\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G E M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe sole appellant herein was prosecuted for commission of offences
\nwith five others under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 323,
\n324 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
 \tShamrao, father of the Appellant,  was accused no. 1. The accused
\nnos. 3 and 4 Ganpati and Tanaji were his brothers whereas accused no. 5
\nVijay Dattatray Salunke was his nephew.  The accused no. 6 Vijay
\nGangaram Patel was a close family friend.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy reason of its judgment dated 08.11.1989 the learned trial Judge
\nwhile convicting the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing
\nhim to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- or in
\ndefault thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and the
\naccused nos. 1 and 4 under Section 324 of the IPC; acquitted the others of all
\ncharges.  The High Court in the appeals preferred by the appellant therein
\naffirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court but modified the
\nsentence in respect of accused nos. 1 and 4 to the period already undergone.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThis appeal was admitted on a limited question, i.e., as regard nature
\nof offence.\n<\/p>\n
Before adverting to the contentions raised in the appeal we may notice
\nthe fact of the matter in brief.  The parties were members of a joint family.
\nShamrao, accused no. 1 and Prahlad were two brothers.  Whereas accused
\nNos. 2 to 5 belong to the branch of Shamrao; the deceased and the
\ncomplainant were sons of Prahlad.  A partition took place between the said
\nbrothers in 1984; whereby the northern portion of the open plot by the side
\nof Haripur Road was allotted to the share of Prahlad and the southern one to
\nShamrao.  The northern and southern portion of the plot is divided by a 15 ft.
\nwide road.  Indisputably the relationships between the parties were strained.
\nAll accused except accused no. 6 and the deceased as also the
\ncomplainant, sons of Prahlad, are thus closely related.  It is not in dispute
\nthat the complainant and his brothers had been bearing grudge against
\nShamrao and his sons inter alia on the ground of inequitable division of the
\njoint family properties.  Their residential houses of both parties were side by
\nside .\n<\/p>\n
On the day of occurrence an almond tree was being planted in their
\nside of open plot by the accused. Rajendra, PW8 and his brother
\nNandkumar, deceased were standing in their portion of the open plot
\nallegedly waiting for their friends for going to participate in a game of
\nKabaddi to which   accused nos. 2 and 3 asked them as to what they had
\nbeen watching.  They replied that they were standing on their own plot
\nbelonging to their father.  The accused on that rushed towards them with
\nweapons.  accused no. 1 had an iron-rod, accused no. 2 had a knife, accused
\nno. 3 was carrying a Pick-axe and accused no. 4 a shovel in their hand.
\nSeeing accused persons advancing towards them the complainant and the
\ndeceased started retreading southwards, i.e., towards plot of the accused.
\nThey fell in a gutter.  Shamrao and Tanaji allegedly assaulted Rajendra
\nwhereas Nandkumar was assaulted by the appellant and Ganpati, accused
\nno. 4 with the weapons in their hands.  Rajendra tried to evade the assault on
\nhim by Shamrao with iron-rod as a result whereof  he received injury on his
\nback.  A spade blow was given by Tanaji on his right foot.  The appellant is
\nsaid to have inflicted knife blows on Nandkumar, one on the chest below the
\nleft nipple and the other on the side near the arm-pit;  whereas Ganpati is
\nsaid to have inflicted blow on his stomach on the left side above hip bone by
\nusing pick-axe.  The said incident is said to have been witnessed by Raju,
\nP.W. 9 and Shrirang Jadhav, P.W. 10 who are friends of Rajendra and who
\nwere coming back from a  temple.  The accused thereafter ran away.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas the deceased was shifted to hospital in a Rickshaw, the
\ncomplainant went to the Police Station alone in another Rickshaw  It is not
\nin dispute that Baburao Thorat P.W. 16, the P.S.O. received a phone call
\nfrom Dr. Aphale informing that Nandkumar had been admitted to the
\nhospital by his brother Arvind.\n<\/p>\n
The first information report lodged by Rajendra was recorded at 8.15
\np.m. by Shri Thorat against the accused for commission of offences under
\nSection 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.  Shri Thorat again  received a
\ncall soon thereafter from Dr. Aphale informing him that Nandkumar had
\ndied in the meanwhile.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Sessions Judge did not believe a part of the prosecution
\nstory, viz., that the complainant and the deceased fell into the gutter because
\nof the mischievous acts of tripping of their legs by the appellant and
\nGanpati.  He was also of the opinion that the accused nos. 5 and 6 had no
\nrole to play in the incident.  He furthermore held that the incident having
\ntaken place at the spur of moment,  no case of formation of common object
\nor common intention had been made out and consequently held that they
\nwere guilty of commission of offences having regard to their individual acts.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
\ndespite limited leave having been granted sought to argue the appeal on
\nmerit which was not permitted.  The learned counsel took us through the
\njudgments of both the courts below as also the evidence of P.W. 8 Rajendra,
\nP.W. 9 Raju and P.W. 10 Shrirrang.  It was contended that the findings of
\nthe Courts below holding the appellant guilty of commission of an offence
\nunder Section 302 I.P.C. must be considered by us in the context that the
\nprosecution story was partly disbelieved.  It was urged that admittedly the
\nincident occurred on the plot owned by his father and in that view of the
\nmatter it cannot be said to be a case where the appellant had any intention or
\nmotive to cause the death of the deceased and the accused nos. 1 and 4 to
\ncause injuries on P.W. 8.  Learned Counsel further urged that Exhibit 31, the
\nknife, having not been found to be blood-stained, the purported recovery
\nthereof was irrelevant.  It was further submitted that as both the Courts
\nbelow  have  concurrently  found  that the incident occurred at the spur of
\nthe moment without there being premeditation and meeting of mind, the
\nappellant at best can be said to have committed an offence under Part II of
\nSec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code.  Our attention was also drawn to the fact
\nthat weapons held by all the accused were available at the spot having been
\ncarried by them for planting the almond tree.  Mr. Mohta further submitted
\nthat in a case of this nature the fourth Exception appended to Section 300 of
\nthe I.P.C. would be attracted.  Reliance in this behalf has been placed in the
\ncase of Khanjan Pal v. State of U.P.<\/a> (1990) 4 SCC 53 and Bhojappa
\nHanumanthappa Choudannavar and ors. vs. State of Karnataka  (2004) 2
\nSCC(Cri.) 1783.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Adsure, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the
\nother hand, submitted that the prosecution case has not only been supported
\nby the complainant but also by the independent eyewitnesses and having
\nregard to the fact that the appellant herein has inflicted two knife injuries on
\nthe vital part of the body of the deceased, it is not a case where fourth
\nException to Section 300 of the I.P.C. shall apply.\n<\/p>\n
Having regard to the fact that limited leave was granted in the matter,
\nnamely, on the question of nature of offence, we are only called upon to
\ndetermine the question as to whether the offence of causing the death of
\nNandkumar at the hands of the Appellant would come within the purview of
\nthe fourth Exception to Section 300 I.P.C. or not.\n<\/p>\n
The genesis of the occurrence is not in dispute.  The complainant and
\nthe deceased were watching plantation of an almond tree in their premises
\nby the accused from their own land.  They cannot be said to have caused any
\nannoyance to them.  It is the appellant and his brother who started exchange
\nof words by asking as to what they had been seeing.  The answer by the
\ncomplainant to the effect that they had been standing on their own land
\ncannot be said to be a cause for the accused being greatly provoked so as to
\ncause bodily injuries on the deceased and the complainant. The appellant
\nand his companions who were armed with weapons assaulted the deceased
\nand the complainant who were unarmed and must have been taken by
\nsurprise.  Conceivably appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4 were carrying  iron rod,
\npick-axe and shovel respectively for the purpose of the plantation of the tree,
\nbut the knife, which was the weapon of offence and was being carried by the
\nappellant herein, was not required for the said purpose.  Why he was
\ncarrying such a big knife remains unexplained.
\nAccused no. 1 and 4 as well as the appellant advanced towards the
\ndeceased and the complainant as a result whereof they went near the gutter
\nwhich was just by the side of the land of the accused.  It may or may not be
\nthat both the deceased and the complainant were tripped into the gutter by
\nthe mischievous acts on the part of the appellant and his brother Ganpati, but
\nthe fact remains that they fell therein.  The learned trial Judge in his
\njudgment found that while retreading, they fell into the gutter themselves.
\nThe complainant and the deceased were assaulted in the gutter itself.  They
\nwere not carrying any weapon whereas the accused were carrying deadly
\nweapons.  The effect of assault with deadly weapons on the vital part of the
\nbody of the deceased by the appellant must be considered in the
\naforementioned factual background.  The learned trial judge and
\nconsequently the High Court arrived at a finding of fact that the complainant
\nand the deceased fell into the gutter. The garments put on by the deceased
\nand the complainant as also the appellant were seized.  The learned trial
\nJudge held that:\n<\/p>\n
“It is also not in dispute that the none of the
\naccused has sustained any injury and, therefore, the fact
\nthat arrest panchanama is not prepared, does not show
\nthat there is manipulation on the part of the I.O. clothes,
\nof these accused are attached under panchanama Ex 44.
\nThis panchanama is duly proved by P.W. 6 Chandrakant
\nBabar.  Panchanama shows that Dhoti and Shirt of
\nShamrao were stained with blood.  There were blood
\nstains on the waist-band and pant of accused No. 2
\nSubhash, and the Bandi and under-pant of accused No. 3
\nGanpati were soiled with silt.  There were blood stains on
\nthe pant of Tanaji.  I have seen these garments at the time
\nof arguments.  It is found that silt was on the sleeve of
\nshirt near the cuff, of accused No. 2 Subhash.  These
\nstains are not mentioned in the panchanama.  There was
\nsilt on all the garments of accused No. 3 Ganapati.  There
\nwere mud stains on the pant, art. No. 22, of accused No.
\n4 Tanaji.  It is pertinent to note here that according to
\naccused No. 3 he had also fallen in the gutter and,
\ntherefore, the fact that all his clothes are covered with
\nsilt, is explained.  These facts establish beyond doubt
\ncredibility of testimony of complainant and eye-
\nwitnesses, P.W. 9 Raju Bavadekar and P.W. 10 Shrirang
\n@ Ranga Jadhav that the complainant and his brother
\nNandkumar had fallen in the gutter and they were
\nassaulted in the gutter.”\n<\/p>\n
The deceased and the complainant thus having fallen into the gutter
\nwere not in a position to defend themselves.\n<\/p>\n
At this juncture, we may notice the ante mortem injuries found on the
\nbody of the deceased Nandkumar.  The doctor who examined the deceased
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
“When I examined the patient, I found that the
\npatient was conscious.  His general condition was poor.
\nThere was severe pallor.  Pulse 110 per  minute.\n<\/p>\n
Respiratory rate 40 per minute.  B.P. 80 to 60 Hg.
\nPatient gave history of assault at 7 p.m. with knife.”\n<\/p>\n
The post mortem was also conducted by him.  The doctor further
\nopined:\n<\/p>\n
“At the time of post-mortem, I observed that the
\nclothes of the deceased were wet with dirty water.  I have
\ndescribed external injuries in column No. 17.  I have also
\nobserved at the time of post-mortem that there was mark
\nof blood over chest, abdomen, legs hands mixed with
\ndirty water stains.  These observations are mentioned in
\ncolumn No. 14 of post-mortem notes.”\n<\/p>\n
He further stated that :\n<\/p>\n
“Contents of the post-mortem notes are correct.
\nPost mortem notes are marked as Exh. 67.  All these
\ninjuries were ante-mortem.  Injury No. 1 in col. No. 17
\ncorresponds to finding in col. No. 29(e) i.e. injury to left
\nlung.  Injury No. 4 is surgical.  Injury No. 2 corresponds
\nto internal injury described in col. No. 21 showing that
\nlarge intestine was punctured.  The blood seen in the
\nperitoneam might on account of injury No.3  described in
\ncolumn No. 17.  Standing of pleura with blood is on
\naccount injury No. 1.  Inj. Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 can be
\ncaused by hard and sharp weapon.  Art. No. 31-knife
\nshown to witness.  Injury No. 1, 2 and 5 can be caused by
\nthis knife.  Injury No.  5 can be caused while making
\nefforts to ward off the blow.  Pick-axe (Art. No. 5) shown
\nto witness.  Injury No. 3 can be caused by pointed end of
\nthe pick-axe.”\n<\/p>\n
In his opinion, the injury No. 1 by itself was sufficient in the ordinary
\ncourse of nature to cause death.  Injury No. 2 and 3 can also cause death but
\nin that case the death will not be immediate.  Those injuries however would
\nnot be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as there
\ncould be chances of survival as well as of death.  It was explained by him
\nthat in his injury report he opined that injury no. 2 was muscle deep;  at that
\ntime he did not probe the injury.  In his cross-examination, the doctor further
\nstated that:\n<\/p>\n
“The direction of injury No. 1 is medial upto the
\nthylum of lung (root of lung).  Direction of injury no. 2 is
\ndownwards.  Direction of injury no. 3 is medial.  It is
\ncorrect to say that would cause by pick-axe (Article No.\n<\/p>\n
5) will have lacerations on the edges of the wound.  I
\nhave not noted these lacerations while describing injury
\nNo.3.  It is correct to say that the weapon must enter upto
\nintestine for 6 inches for causing a puncture  The depth of
\nthis injury no. 3 is about 6 inches.  Now says, I cannot
\ndefinitely say that inj. No. 3 can be caused by Article No.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Considering the fact that the weapons pierced the
\nbody of 6 inches.  It is a fact that I have described inj.
\nNo. 2 in M.L.C. register as muscle deep.  This is so
\nbecause at that time I did not probe the injury.”\n<\/p>\n
The injury no. 1 therefore went right upto the right of the lung.  The
\nappellant herein did not restrain himself after inflicting one injury.  He
\ninflicted other and further injury also.  The injuries, in view of the post
\nmortem report, admittedly were more than one.\n<\/p>\n
It is, thus, not a case where only one injury was inflicted by the
\naccused on sudden provocation.\n<\/p>\n
Section 299 I.P.C. reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“299. Culpable homicide.  Whoever causes death
\nby doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
\nwith the intention of causing such bodily injury as is
\nlikely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is
\nlikely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
\nculpable homicide”\n<\/p>\n
Section 300 I.P.C. reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“300. Murder.  Except in the cases hereinafter
\nexcepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
\nwhich the death is caused is done with the intention of
\ncausing death, or-\n<\/p>\n
Secondly,-\tIf it is done with the intention of
\ncausing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
\nlikely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm
\nis caused, or-\n<\/p>\n
Thirdly,-\tIf it is done with the intention of
\ncausing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
\nintended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
\ncourse of nature to cause death, or-\n<\/p>\n
Fourthly,-\tIf the person committing the act
\nknows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in
\nall probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is
\nlikely to cause death, and commits such act without any
\nexcuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
\ninjury as aforesaid.”\n<\/p>\n
Exception 2 to the said Rule postulates that “when culpable homicide
\nis not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by
\ngrave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the persons who gave the
\nprovocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.”
\nException  4 to the said Rule reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Exception 4.  Culpable homicide is not murder if
\nit is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in
\nthe heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
\noffender having taken undue advantage or acted in a
\ncruel or unusual manner.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn this case Exception 2 has no application as the Appellant cannot be
\nsaid to have committed offence whilst deprived with the power of  self-
\ncontrol by grave and sudden provocation, as has been noticed hereinbefore,
\nthat in the facts and circumstances of the case the deceased and the
\ncomplainant cannot be said to have caused any provocation to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The distinction between the offences of culpable homicide and murder
\nis the presence of special mens rea which consists of four mental attitudes in
\nthe presence of any of which the lesser offence becomes greater.  These
\nattitudes are stated in Section 300 IPC as distinguishing murder from
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder.\n<\/p>\n
The ingredients of the said Exception 4 are (i) there must be a sudden
\nfight; (ii) there was no pre-meditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat
\nof passion and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted
\nin a cruel manner.\n<\/p>\n
In the event the said ingredients are present, the cause of quarrel
\nwould not be material as to who offered the provocation or started assault.
\nIndisputably, however, the occurrence must be sudden and not pre-meditated
\nand the offender must have acted in a fits of anger.\n<\/p>\n
In  Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 298 at p.
\n307 this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“So far as the third contention of Mr. Mishra is
\nconcerned, the question for consideration would be as to
\nwhether the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code can be said to have been satisfied.
\nThe necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300
\nare:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a)\ta sudden fight;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t(b)\tabsence of premeditation;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t(c)\tno undue advantage or cruelty.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
but the occasion must be sudden and not as a cloak for
\npre-existing malice.  It is only an unpremeditated assault
\ncommitted in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
\nwhich would come within Exception 4 and it is necessary
\nthat all the three ingredients must be found.  From the
\nevidence on record it is established that while the
\nprosecution party was on their land it is the accused who
\nprotested and prevented them from continuing with
\nploughing but when they did not stop the accused persons
\nrushed to the nearby plot which is their land and got
\nweapons in their hands and assaulted the prosecution
\nparty ultimately injuring several members of the
\nprosecution party and causing the death of one of them
\nwhile they were fully unarmed.  In this view of the matter
\non scrutinizing the evidence of the four eyewitnesses
\nPWs 2, 4, 7 and 8 who have depicted the entire scenario
\nit is not possible for us to agree with the submission of
\nMr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
\nappellants that the case is one where Exception 4 to
\nSection 300 would be applicable.  We, therefore, reject
\nthe said submission of the learned counsel.”\n<\/p>\n
Even if it be assumed that responses to the questions put to the
\ndeceased or the complainant caused provocation, the same evidently was
\nbecause of the pre-existing malice and the bias which the Appellant had
\nagainst them.  Moreover, the manner in which the deceased and the
\ncomplainant were assaulted show that the assailants took undue advantage of
\nthe situation as they fell into the gutter and were, thus, in a helpless
\ncondition.\n<\/p>\n
In Prabhu and ors. vs. State of M.P.<\/a>  [1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 725] a
\nthree Judge Bench of this Court rejected a similar contention in a case where
\nthe accused inflicted more than one injury stating :\n<\/p>\n
“The evidence of PW 4, Dr. C.K. Dafal,
\nhowever, shows that the deceased  was belaboured
\nmercilessly.  There were innumerable contusions on the
\nentire body of the deceased from head to toe.  The wrist,
\nhumerus, etc. were fractured and the whole body was full
\nof rod marks.  There were several contused lacerated
\nwounds on the entire face and the left eye was bleeding.
\nThe totality of the injuries caused to the victim clearly
\nsupports the finding of both the courts below that the
\nappellants went on belabouring the deceased till he died
\non the spot.\n<\/p>\n
In Thangaiya v. State of T.N. [(2005) 9 SCC 650], relying upon a
\ncelebrated decision of this Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a> [1958
\nSCR 1495], the Division Bench observed:\n<\/p>\n
“17. These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become
\nlocus classicus. The test laid down by Virsa Singh case
\nfor the applicability of clause “thirdly” is now ingrained
\nin our legal system and has become part of the rule of
\nlaw. Under clause “thirdly” of Section 300 IPC, culpable
\nhomicide is murder, if both the following conditions are
\nsatisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done
\nwith the intention of causing death or is done with the
\nintention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the
\ninjury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
\ncourse of nature to cause death. It must be proved that
\nthere was an intention to inflict that particular bodily
\ninjury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was
\nsufficient to cause death viz. that the injury found to be
\npresent was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.\n<\/p>\n
18. Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa
\nSingh case even if the intention of the accused was
\nlimited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to
\ncause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not
\nextend to the intention of causing death, the offence
\nwould be murder. Illustration (c) appended to Section
\n300 clearly brings out this point.”\n<\/p>\n
 Therein it was held that there is no fixed rule that whenever a single
\nblow is inflicted Section 302 would not be attracted.\n<\/p>\n
No hard and fast rule, however, can be laid down as different
\nsituations may arise having regard to the factual matrix involved therein.\n<\/p>\n
Khanjan Pal v. State of U.P.<\/a> [(1990) 4 SCC 53] relied upon by Mr.
\nMohta is distinguishable.  In that case altercations between the deceased and
\nthe accused was admitted.  A scuffle took place in course whereof the
\ndeceased received injuries.  Evidence brought on records clearly established
\nthat the whole incident took place as a result of sudden development.  The
\nappellant therein was found to have acted at the spur of the moment and
\nwithout any premeditation.\n<\/p>\n
In this case, there was no provocation from the side of the deceased.
\nHe did not make even any causal remark which could provoke him nor the
\nparties entered in altercations which culminated in the incident.\n<\/p>\n
In Bhojappa Hanumanthappa (supra) whereupon again Mr. Mohta
\nplaced reliance the fact of the matter was entirely different as would appear
\nfrom the following :\n<\/p>\n
“A commotion took place in front of the house of
\nBhimappa (PW1) during the night of 10-9-1984.  The
\nappellant and his co-accused were involved in assaulting
\nBhimappa and his brothers-in-law.  While the brawl was
\nin full swing PW 1’s daughter Renu Kavva, a twelve year
\nold little girl, rushed to the scene presumably to rescue
\nher father whom she would have thought to be in a
\ndangerous situation.  The appellant herein then swished a
\nwooden hammer he was then possessed with, which hit
\non the head of Renu Kavva, which unfortunately turned
\nout to be fatal.  Therefore, the High Court, on the appeal
\nagainst acquittal, found that the appellant did not intend
\nto inflict the injury which caused her death.  We are in
\nagreement with the finding of the High Court that the
\noffence is only under Section 304 Part II IPC.”\n<\/p>\n
In the afore-mentioned situation, this Court opined that the appellant
\ntherein had no ire against the little girl either before or during the
\noccurrence.  It was an act done in a rash mood with no intention to cause
\neven grievous hurt to her.\n<\/p>\n
The case at hand stands absolutely on a different footing.  The
\nreported blows on the body of the deceased evidently were done with an
\nintention to cause bodily injuries to him and such injuries were sufficient in
\nthe ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence would come within
\nthe purview of culpable homicide amounting to murder as envisaged under
\nSection 300 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and
\nfor the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit
\ncase where a different opinion from that of the trial court as also the High
\nCourt can be arrived at.  Both the courts, in our considered view  had rightly
\nconvicted the appellant herein for commission of an offence under Section
\n302 of the I.P.C.  The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 541 of 1999 PETITIONER: Subhash Shamrao Pachunde RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2005 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar JUDGMENT: J U D G E M […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSubhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005 - 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\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-19T23:05:33+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-19T23:05:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4290,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-19T23:05:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005 - 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\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-19T23:05:33+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-19T23:05:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005"},"wordCount":4290,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005","name":"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-19T23:05:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-shamrao-pachunde-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhash Shamrao Pachunde vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2005"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/235053","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=235053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}