Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 550 (BOM)

Shrikrishna Bhikaji Rele v. State of Maharashtra

2007-04-17

C.L.PANGARKAR

body2007
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per C.L.Pangarkar,J) 1. Accused No.1, who was convicted under Section 307 of Criminal Appeal no.370 of 2005. the Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola has preferred this appeal. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under - The acquitted accused no.2 is the uncle of the complainant. There is a dispute between father of the complainant and accused no.2 over the open space infront of their houses. 3. On 23/5/2002, the complainant Anil Baban Rele and his mother had gone to the house of one Devidas to attend the marriage. They were coming back home around 10.30 p.m. While they were so coming back, it is alleged that, accused no.2 and appellant/accused no.1 were found standing on the road infront of their house. Shrikrishna . accused no.1 was holding an axe in his hand. As soon as they reached near the house of accused, accused no.2 said to accused no.1 to assault the complainant and his mother. Accused no.1 immediately rushed and dealt a blow of Criminal Appeal no.370 of 2005. axe on the neck of the mother of the complainant. She fell down there. They shouted, people gathered. She was removed to the hospital and report was lodged with the police. After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the evidence tendered before him, found the accused no.1 guilty and acquitted accused no.2. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused no.1 has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Shri H.D.Dube, Advocate for the appellant and Shri B.H.Lanjewar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses. PW.1, 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses while PW.5 and 6 are the Medical Officers, who examined the injured, PW 4 and 7 are the panchas and PW 8 is the Investigating Officer. Criminal Appeal no.370 of 2005. 7. It is deposed by PW 1 Anil that accused no.1 had kept one cot in the portion of their court-yard and, therefore, there was a quarrel between his father and accused no.2. Criminal Appeal no.370 of 2005. 7. It is deposed by PW 1 Anil that accused no.1 had kept one cot in the portion of their court-yard and, therefore, there was a quarrel between his father and accused no.2. He states that he had gone to attend the marriage at the house of one Ghasle and was coming back along with his mother at 10.30 p.m. He further states that when they came near the house of accused, accused no.1 assaulted his mother with an axe and she fell down. He further states that she was thereafter taken with the help of the neighbours to the Police Station and report was lodged and then she was removed to the hospital. There is virtually no cross-examination to this witness on the incident of assault. One omission is brought on record and it is in respect as to in which hand there was an axe with the accused no.1. The omission is absolutely immaterial. The contents of the F.I.R. (Exh.19) fully corroborates the version of PW 1. Further PW 2 Rukhmabai also deposes that she was assaulted by accused no.1 with an axe and she fell down and suffered injuries. It is only asked to her if there is a drainage at the place of the incident and whether there are glasses and stones in the said drainage. There is no cross-examination worth the name to Criminal Appeal no.370 of 2005. this witness also. The credit of neither PW 1 and of nor PW 2 is shaken anywhere. The accused/appellant does not explain the injuries suffered by Rukhmabai. It is not even suggested how the injuries were caused to Rukhmabai. 8. The Medical Officer Dr.Ranjit (PW 5) has stated that he had examined injured Rukhmabai on 23/5/02 at district hospital and found 2 injuries i.e. two lacerated wounds of 6. x 3. and 3. x 1. on the neck and chin. He states that both injuries were deep. He also states that both injuries could be possible due to sharp and hard object like axe. Further he goes on to depose that had the patient not been provided timely treatment, she would have died. Exh.38 is the Certificate issued by him. The only suggestion given to witness is that whether such injury could be caused by fall on a sharp edge of a glass. Further he goes on to depose that had the patient not been provided timely treatment, she would have died. Exh.38 is the Certificate issued by him. The only suggestion given to witness is that whether such injury could be caused by fall on a sharp edge of a glass. The witness does admit that such injury could be caused, but such a suggestion is not given either to the injured Rukhmabai or Anil (PW 1). Therefore, this admission on the part of Dr.Ranjit is of no consequence. There is no manner of doubt, therefore, that accused no.1 is the author of the injury. The Criminal Appeal no.370 of 2005. accused had assaulted injured Rukhmabai with an axe and he had delivered a blow over the neck. He has chosen a very vital part of the body. It is stated by Dr.Ranjit that had no treatment been given, she would have died. The fact that the accused chose the neck for causing injury shows that he has had an intention to cause death. The injury was certainly capable of causing death, as stated by the Medical Officer. It is, therefore, obvious that in the ordinary course of nature the injury would have resulted into the death. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, has rightly held the accused guilty under Section 307 of I.P.Code. 9. The accused as stated by PW 1 appears to be somewhat mentally retarded though not lunatic. In the circumstances, I find that the punishment as imposed to be too harsh. Rigorous imprisonment of five years, therefore, to my mind, would meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances, the appeal must partly succeed. The conviction of the accused under section 307 of I.P.Code is confirmed. The sentence is, however, modified. Instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment, the accused shall undergo Criminal Appeal no.370 of 2005. rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years only. The fine as imposed is also confirmed. The accused is in jail since 25/5/2002, benefit of set off be given. The lawyer's fee is quantified at Rs.2000/-.