Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 749 (BOM)

Aappa Kakrya Pawara v. State of Maharashtra

2008-06-06

BORA SANTOSH, N.V.DABHOLKAR

body2008
Per BORA SANTOSH, J.: - By this Criminal Appeal, under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), the appellant-Appa Kakrya Pawara seeks to challenge (the validity, legality and propriety of the judgment and order passed by the learned 0 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 16/2005 dated 18.4.2006, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him 0 to suffer imprisonment for life and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, imposing further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Briefly stated, .the prosecution case d, is as under: Appellant Appa Kakrya Pawara is resident of village Chakadu, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule. He married with Surmibai 11 years prior to 18.12.2004 (the date incident) at Shirpur. Surmibai is the daughter of Phadya as well as the sister of Bahadrya Phadya Pawara and Sahadarya) Phadya Pawara, resident of village Manjaripada, Taluka Shirpur, District If Dhule. Out of the said wedlock, the couple was blessed with five children-three daughters and two sons, namely, Ganga, Jamana, If Suklal, Mangalu and Bayadi. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant (here in after referred to as the accused) was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to abuse, assault his wife Surmibai and also used to doubt her chastity. It is the prosecution case that as Surmibai could not tolerate the behaviour and conduct of the accused, she left the matrimonial house with five children and started residing with her parents and brothers at Manjaripada, which is about 10 kms from the village Chakadu in Shirpur Taluka, since about ten to twelve months prior to the date of the incident. It is further alleged that, during the said period, the accused twice visited Manjaripada where Surmibai was residing and requested her to join him. However, this request was not accepted by Surmibai as the accused did not accede to her request to stop the habit of drinking liquor. It is further prosec';ltion case that, in the meanwhile, Surmibai went to village Chakadu and left her five children at the house of the accused and, thus, on the date of incident, the children were not staying with deceased Surmibai' at village Manjaripada. It is further prosec';ltion case that, in the meanwhile, Surmibai went to village Chakadu and left her five children at the house of the accused and, thus, on the date of incident, the children were not staying with deceased Surmibai' at village Manjaripada. It is in these circumstances, on 18.12.2004, at about 6.30 a.m. (early hours of the morning) when Surmibai was present in the house of her parents and brothers, the accused came there and all of a sudden assaulted her with knife due to 'which she sustained cut incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x deep over just lateral to left scapular region and piercing through 3rd and 4th rib from posterior. Within short time, Surmibai succumbed to the injuries in the house. It is the case of the prosecution that, Sahadrya, brother of deceased Surmibai, Phadya, her father, Keshariabai, wife of another brother Bahadrya, were present in the house. As the Surmibai cried for help, her brother Sahadrya came in the kitchen room where she was assaulted by the accused and he tried to catch hold the accused but the accused was trying to run away from the spot. Thereafter accused dropped the knife on the floor. In the meanwhile, even Phadya, father of Surmibai came in the kitchen room from the first room and he found that the accused had assaulted Surmibai with knife and father held Surmibai in both his hands. Bahadarya, the other brother, had just left the house and was away at 200 fts, distance from the said house. Due to hue and cry made by his wife Keshariyabai, he rushed to the house and found that Surmibai was assaulted and she had sustained bleeding injury and she was held in his hands by his father whereas, his brother Sahadrya had caught hold the accused, who had dropped the knife on the floor. It is alleged by the prosecution that Sunnibai told Bahadrya that she was assaulted by her husband with knife. Surmibai died within few minutes as she had sustained serious injury as stated above. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that c Bahadrya immediately went out of the house and went to the house of Police Patil Sangram. Police Patil Sangram also visited the spot of the incident. Thereafter, Bahadarya and Police Patil Sangram went to Shirpur and lodged complaint at Shirpur (Police Station (Exh. 15). 3. It is the case of the prosecution that c Bahadrya immediately went out of the house and went to the house of Police Patil Sangram. Police Patil Sangram also visited the spot of the incident. Thereafter, Bahadarya and Police Patil Sangram went to Shirpur and lodged complaint at Shirpur (Police Station (Exh. 15). The said complaint was reduced in writing by one K.C. Patil, C Police Sub-Inspector, who was pleased to register the offence at Crime No. 280/2004 under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and c handed over the investigation to Vasant a Madhukar More, A.P.1. After verification of the complaint at Exh. 15 A.P.I. Vasant more went to village Manjaripada, visited the place of occurrence is i.e. the house of the complainant Bahadrya, prepared the inquest panchnama of or Surmibai at Exh. 19, drew the panchnama of the spot of the incident in presence of panch witnesses, seized the weapon of the offence, namely, knife (Article No.6 -here in after referred to as Sun as is referred by e the witnesses), which was stained with blood. He also seized soil mixed with blood t. and without blood from the spot (Article Nos. 4 and 5). Thereafter, he sent the dead body of Surmibai with Constable Chavan to Cotrltage Hospital, Shirpur, for autopsy. Then, he recorded statement of Sahadrya, an eyes witness to the incident, on 18.12.2004 itself. He brought the accused, who was detained by the people, to the Police Station - and arrested him under arrest panchnama. The arrest panchnama at Exh. 18 was also prepared. He also seized the clothes on the person of the accused - brown colored shirt, T-shirt and pant (Article Nos. 8, 9 and l 10). One cotton bag (Article 7) used for keeping the knife was also seized. After post mortem, Constable Chavan produced clothes on the person of Surmibai, which were 'seized by him under seizure panchnama. Then he issued letter to Tehsildar for preparation of the map of the spot of the incident vide Ex. 33 and forwarded Muddemal Property to the Chemical Analyser. After receipt of the reports from the Chemical Analyser, the same-were produced before the Court and exhibited as Exhs. 35, 36 and 37, respectively. On 20.12.2004, PSI Dattatraya Shamrao Barade received the investigation of the crime in question from API More. 33 and forwarded Muddemal Property to the Chemical Analyser. After receipt of the reports from the Chemical Analyser, the same-were produced before the Court and exhibited as Exhs. 35, 36 and 37, respectively. On 20.12.2004, PSI Dattatraya Shamrao Barade received the investigation of the crime in question from API More. He completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shirpur, on 15.3.2005. As the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. was exclusively tnable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate was pleased to commit the case for trial to the Sessions Court at Dhule. Charge was framed at Exh. 7 to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. During the course of the trial before the learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule (Shri D.S. Marathe), the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. PW No. 1 Bahadrya Khadya Pawara is the brother of deceased Surmibai. PW No. 2 Gulabsing Bahadur Pawara is the panch witness and was examined in order to prove the various Panchnamas, including the spot panchnama. PW No.3 Sahadrya Khadya Pawara is another brother of deceased Surmibai. PW No. 4 is the Phadya Bhala Pawara, who is father of deceased Surmibai. PW No. 5 is Bhaita Shankar Pawara, who visited the house of the complainant after hearing hue and cry and found that Surmibai had sustained bleeding injury and was lying in a pool of blood in the said house whereas, accused was caught held by Sahadrya. PW No.6 Dr. Bharat Prabhudas Gohil I was the Medical Officer attached to Cottage Hospital, Shirpur. On 18.12.2004, at about, 4.35 p.m., dead body of Surmibai was brought by the Police for autopsy. He conducted autopsy from 5 to 5.30 p.m. The dead body was identified by the complainant Bahadrya, brother of the deceased. The dead body was brought from Manjaripada which was at a distance of 30 kms from Shirpur. The dead body was brought by A.R. Chavan, Constable of Shirpur Police Station. On external examination, Dr. Gohil (PW 6) noticed cut incised wound of size 4 cms x deep over just lateral to left scapular region with tapering edge and oval shaped. The injury was piercing through 3rd and 4th rib from posterior. Dr. Gohil also issued post-mortem notes (Exh. 29). On external examination, Dr. Gohil (PW 6) noticed cut incised wound of size 4 cms x deep over just lateral to left scapular region with tapering edge and oval shaped. The injury was piercing through 3rd and 4th rib from posterior. Dr. Gohil also issued post-mortem notes (Exh. 29). In paragraph 17 of the post-mortem notes, the nature, position and dimensions of the injury sustained by Surmibai was mentioned as under: "Cut incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x deep, over just lateral to left scapular region with tapering edge (oval shaped) piercing in between 3rd, 4th ribs from posteriorly." In paragraph No. 19, Dr. Gohil has mentioned internal injuries. So far as the cause of death is concerned, it is stated that the death occurred due to haemorrhagic shock due to stab injury on back. PW 7 Dattatraya Shamrao Barade has completed a part of the investigation and filed charge-sheet, as mentioned above, whereas, PW No.8 Vas ant Madhukar More, 1 A.P.I., has played an important role in the investigation of the instant crime. 5. So far as the defence of the accused I. is concerned, the same is of total denial and he has filed written explanation at Exh. 40 under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has denied the allegation regarding addiction to liquor. On the other hand, it is stated that, on 17.12.2004, some cultural programme (Radii, called as Tamosha) of their community was arranged at Manjaripada and he had installed a Tea Stall. It is stated that, he was assaulted by his father-in-law as well as both the brothers-in-law. He stated further that he was further assaulted in the moming hours by Sahadrya and Bahadrya and their father Phadya Pawara and, therefore, he sustained injuries due to which his clothes were stained with blood. It is stated further that, due to hue and cry made by the said persons and Kesharibai, about 62 to 70 villagers assembled there and it is stated that though he falsely confessed that he asaulted Surmibai but, it is further stated that he did not know about the incident and he was falsely implicated by his in-laws. It is stated further that his in7laws were running lucky draw scheme and cheated several villagers and villages of the villages surrounding the said village and several cases were filed against them. It is stated further that his in7laws were running lucky draw scheme and cheated several villagers and villages of the villages surrounding the said village and several cases were filed against them. It is further stated that murder cases are also pending against them in Sendhwa Court. Thus, in brief, the accused denied that he committed the crime as alleged. 6. Leamed 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, accepted the evidence of PW No.1 Bahadarya, PW No.3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 Phadya as truthful and reliable. The leamed Additional Sessions Judge also found that the accused intentionally killed his wife by the weapon produc'ed before the Court. Considering the totality of i the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused guilty for the charge of committing murder of his wife and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 7. We have heard learned Counsel Mrs. Deepali Jape Ansingkar for the appellant, who was appointed to prosecute the appeal of prisoner accused and, Mrs. Ranjana D. Reddi, learned A.P.P., for the respondent State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mrs. Deepali Jape Ansingkar contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and further the defence of the accused is acceptable on the a basis of preponderance of probabilities. She argued that the prosecution has failed to c discharge the burden of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt. She has further argued that the evidence of PW No. 1 Bahadarya, PW 3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 n Phadya is not reliable, truthful and accept-able. She has further contended that they II are relatives of the deceased and, thus, there s is every possibility that the accused is falsely implicated at the instance of in-laws as, according to the learned Counsel, there is no apparent motive for the accused to commit murder of his wife in the manner as alleged. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. Mrs. R.D. Reddi submitted that there is no need to establish the motive as the present case is based upon the direct evidence. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. Mrs. R.D. Reddi submitted that there is no need to establish the motive as the present case is based upon the direct evidence. Surmibai was found dead in the house of complainant Bahadrya, who is her brother whereas, the accused was caught at the spot with weapon of offence in his hand, which was dropped on the spot and his defence plea is found false and, thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. Before adverting to the merits of the 1 matter, we have ourselves considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant and gone through the entire tire evidence on record. It is well settled that, in serious crimes like murder where so see were a sentence as life imprisonment has been inflicted by the Sessions Court and g appeal is as of right, under section 374(2) - of the Code, the High Court must indicate, in a reasoned judgment that it has applied, its mind to the material questions of fact and law. It has to be pointed out that al.1 though under section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has t undoubtedly the powers to summarily dish miss a first appeal against conviction of accused yet, in very serious cases like those under section 302 of I.P.C. or other cases where death or life imprisonment can be awarded, this Court should consider the appeal on merits, instead of dismissing it summarily unless the evidence is so clear, ) cogent, reliable and creditworthy that, on the face of it, no case for barest consideration is made out. The Apex Court was pleased to disapprove the practice of dismissing the Criminal Appeals with laconic expression "Dismissed" in several decisions. In this behalf reference to following decisions can usefully be made. (1) 1981 DGLS (soft) 197: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1218: 1981(2) S.C.C. 575 (Dagadu Vs. State of Maharashtra)1. (2) 1984(1) Bom.C.R. 18 (S.C.): 1983 DGLS (soft) 211: A.I.R.1983S.C.I014: 1983(4) S.C.C. 129 (Shivaji Narayan Bachhav Vs. State of Maharashtra)2. (3) 1986 DGLS (soft) 33: A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1070: 1986(2) S.C.C. 90 (Raghunath Laxman Makadwada Vs. State of Maharashtra)3. (4) 1987 DGLS (soft) 362: 1989 (Supp.2) S.C.C. 410 (Arun Ram Chandra Swant Vs. State of Maharashtra)4. (5) 1987 DGLS (soft) 362: 1990 S.C.C. (Cri.) 619: 1990 (Supply) S.C.C. 65 (Saybu Maruti Ghadge Vs. State of Maharashtra)2. (3) 1986 DGLS (soft) 33: A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1070: 1986(2) S.C.C. 90 (Raghunath Laxman Makadwada Vs. State of Maharashtra)3. (4) 1987 DGLS (soft) 362: 1989 (Supp.2) S.C.C. 410 (Arun Ram Chandra Swant Vs. State of Maharashtra)4. (5) 1987 DGLS (soft) 362: 1990 S.C.C. (Cri.) 619: 1990 (Supply) S.C.C. 65 (Saybu Maruti Ghadge Vs. State of Maharashtra)5. 9. Hence, we have perused the entire evidence and material on record. It is an admitted fact that marriage of the accused was solemnized with Surmibai, sister of PW 1 Bahadrya about 11 years back. It is further admitted fact that Surmibai came to the house of her father or brothers at village Manjaripada about eight months prior to the date of incident, with her five children. PW No. 1 Bahadrya has stated in his evidence that twice, within the period of eight months, accused visited his house after consuming liquor and asked Surmibai as to whether she is ready to come to his house or not. It is stated further that Surmibai told the accused that she will return to his house only in case he leaves the habit of drinking liquor. It is further deposed that thereafter, Surmibai went to the house of the accused with her children and left the children at the house of the accused and she only returned to the house of the complainant. It is specifically stated that on 18th December, 2004, at about 6.30 a.m., he went out of house and crossed the distance of about 200 feet when he heard the shouts of her wife and, thereafter, he returned to his house. He states further that, in fact, he, his wife, his father and brother were residing in the said house on the day of the incident. He has stated further that, he saw that his father was holding his sister Surmibai who had sustained bleeding injury and further his brother Sahadrya had caught hold the accused. He has further deposed that he saw knife lying near the accused. He has specifically stated that Surmibai told him that the accused inflicted the blow of knife towards her left side on the ribs. He has stated further that Surmibai sustained bleeding injury and, immediately thereafter, breathed her last. Then he states as to how he left for the house of Police PatH Sangram and brought him to the spot of the incident. He has stated further that Surmibai sustained bleeding injury and, immediately thereafter, breathed her last. Then he states as to how he left for the house of Police PatH Sangram and brought him to the spot of the incident. It is further deposed that he, along with Police Path and one Gulabsingh went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint (Exh. 15). Perusal of the complaint (Exh. 15) reveals that the marriage of Surmibai, sister of the complainant, was solemnized, ten years before the incident in question, with the accused and, out of the said wedlock, she has begotten five children. It is specifically stated that, since one year prior to the incident, accused was addicted to liquor and, under the influence of liquor, he used to beat her, abuse her and also, doubted her chastity and, as the behaviour of the accused was unbearable, Surmibai was constrained to leave village Chakadu and l came to her parents house at Manjaripada, with children. It is further stated that, since eight months prior to the incident, she was residing with her parents and she had clearly stated that she will not leave the parents house until her husband gives up his addiction to liquor. It is stated further that, during the period of eight months, accused visited Manjaripada twice. However, on both the occasions, he was under the influence of liquor and, as such, Surmibai refused to accompany him. It is stated further that, few months before the incident in question, Surmibai left her children at the residence of her husband at Chakadu and she alone came back to her parents house at Manjaripada. It is stated further that, even thereafter, the accused visited their house at Manjaripada and asked Surmibai to accompany him but, she refused to do so. It is stated further that, on the relevant day, in the morning at 6.30 a.m., when she was present in the house, accused came all of a sudden and assaulted Surmibai with, knife and she died immediately. Thus, the testimony of Bahadarya (PW I) is as per the contents of the complaint. It is not necessary to refer to the evidence of PW No.3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 Phadya in detail inasmuch as, according to us, the testimony of PW No.3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 Phadya squarely corroborates the testimony of PW No.1. Thus, the testimony of Bahadarya (PW I) is as per the contents of the complaint. It is not necessary to refer to the evidence of PW No.3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 Phadya in detail inasmuch as, according to us, the testimony of PW No.3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 Phadya squarely corroborates the testimony of PW No.1. Apart from their evidence, one more witness is examined by the 1 prosecution and who is PW No.5 Bhaita, who also arrived at the spot in question. It is admitted by the accused that, several villagers - had gathered at the place of the incident where 1 the dead body of Surmibai was lying. Thus, it 1 was very natural for PW No.5 to remain, present at the spot though his statement by the Police was recorded after one month but there is nothing in his testimony to disbelieve r his version on oath before the Court. 10. The evidence ofSahadarya (PW 3) and 1 Phadya (PW 4), who are brother and father respectively of deceased Surmibai is quite natural and acceptable though there are minor contradictions as the witnesses are belonging to the tribal community i.e. AdivasiPavara community. The said witnesses were naturally present in the house in the morning hours, the deceased Surmibai was also present in the house and there is no reason for PW No. 3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 Phadya to falsely implicate the accused. There is no reason for unknown person to commit the crime and there is no reason for the complainant, his brother and father to falsely involve the accused in the instant crime, thereby leaving I the real assailant, if any. Thus, the evidence of PW No. 1 Bahadrya, PW No.3 Sahadrya and PW No.4 Phadya is quite truthful, natural and acceptable and if this evidence is acceptable, there is no reason for this Court to go into the question of motive as there is a direct evidence to prove that it is the accused and accused alone who assaulted his wife. So far as evidence of PW 3 Sahadrya is concerned, it is clear that, he was present in the house, in the second room, when accused came, all of a sudden, in the morning hours and assaulted Surmibai, while she was in the kitchen room. So far as evidence of PW 3 Sahadrya is concerned, it is clear that, he was present in the house, in the second room, when accused came, all of a sudden, in the morning hours and assaulted Surmibai, while she was in the kitchen room. After the incident in question, accused was held by Sahadrya on the spot Thus, the evidence of Sahadrya is quite natural, reliable and truthful. 11. The medical evidence consists of PW No.6 Dr. Bharat Prabhudas Oohil who conducted autopsy on the same day at Cottage Hospital, Shirpur. Dr. Gohil states that, he saw the cut incised wound mentioned in Column No. 17 of the post-mortem report. The evidence of PW No.6 further shows that probable cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock due to stab injury which was sufficient to cause death of Surmibai. The weapon of the assault (Article 6) was identified by all the witnesses and Dr. Oohil has categorically stated that the injuries mentioned in Column No. 17 of the post-mortem report are possible by blow of the knife (Article 6) before the Court. Homicidal death of Surmibai is not challenged by the accused. What is challenged is the involvement of the accused or the authorship or connection of the accused with the crime in question. Thus, the evidence on record, as indicated above, is sufficient to prove that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 12. Before parting with, we would like to point out that, in the instant case, the charge was framed as under: "CHARGE I.D.S. Marathe, 4th Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule, do hereby charge you: Appa Kakarya Pawara, aged - 40 yrs. R/o Chakadu, Tal. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule, as follows: That on 18.12.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. within the limits of village Manjanipada, in the house of complainant, you did commit murder of Surmibai Appa Pawara, by intentionally or knowingly causing her death by assaulting her with an iron Suri, and thereby caused injuries she died on 13.10.2005 in Civil Hospital, Dhule, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the aforesaid charge. Dated this 15th day of February, 2006. 15.2.06 Sd/- (D.S. Marathe) 4th Ad Hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused person in Marathi. Date: 15.2.2006 Sd/-15.2.06 4th Ad hoc Addl. S.J., Dhule." Thus, perusal of the above mentioned charge clearly shows, that murder of deceased Surmibai was committed by the accused by assaulting her with iron Suri (knife) on 18.12.2004. However, the time of the incident is mentioned as 6.30 p.m. when the record and other evidence clearly shows v that the incident occurred at 6.30 a.m. i.e. in the morning hours. Secondly, Surmibai, died in the house of the complainant and her dead body was referred to the Cottage (Hospital at Shripur by the Police where t autopsy was conducted by Dr. Gohil, as referred to above, whereas, it is stated in the charge that Surmibai died on 13.10.2005 in Civil Hospital, Dhule This cannot be treated to be a typographical mistake inasmuch as even the name of the Civil Hospital, Dhule, is wrongly mentioned when, the above mentioned record shows that, autopsy was conducted at Cottage Hospital, Shirpur. Thus, there are apparent mistakes and, according to us, the mistakes are serious, though the same are not going to change the fate of the accused. We have also perused the Point No.2 framed for determination by the learned Sessions Judge on page No.4, paragraph No.7, which is quoted here in below: "(2) Whether it is proved by the prosecution that the accused on 18.12.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. at village Manjanipada, at the house of complainant committed murder of Suramibai, in ten tionally or knowingly causing her death by assaulting her with Suri (knife)? It is true that though the charge framed, as stated above, is defective, the same has not caused prejudice to the defence of the accused in any manner. However, no such objection was raised in the trial Court or before the Appellate Court. We have allowed the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant to submit the written arguments, if she so desires, after the arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved on 6th May, 2008. The written arguments were tendered on 12th May, 2008. However, no such objection was raised in the trial Court or before the Appellate Court. We have allowed the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant to submit the written arguments, if she so desires, after the arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved on 6th May, 2008. The written arguments were tendered on 12th May, 2008. Nowhere in the written argument the objection regarding irregularity or otherwise regarding framing of the charge was argued. Framing of charge is not an empty formality. The charge must be framed in accordance with the guidelines as provided by Code of Criminal Procedure. There should be application of mind while framing the charge. In fact, framing of the charge is the first stage in the trial when learned Judge is required to apply his mind. 13. Chapter XVII of Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the charge. Sub-Chapter A pertains to form of charges. Section 211 is in respect of the contents of the charge. Sections 211,212,213 and 214 of Code of· Criminal Procedure are quoted here in below: "211. Contents of charge: 1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. (2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only. (3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (5) The fact· that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. (6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court. (5) The fact· that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. (6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court. (7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact date and place of the previous, conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at anytime before sentence is passed. 212. Particulars as to time, place and person: (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other moveable property; it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, described the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a I charge of one offence within the meaning of section 219: Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year. 213. When manner of committing offence must be stated: When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged of- ( fence was committed as will be sufficient 1 for that purpose. 214. Words in charge taken in sense of law under which offence is punishable. 214. Words in charge taken in sense of law under which offence is punishable. In every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable." However, section 215 is material and pertains to the effects of errors. It is clearly stated that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required (to be stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the accused was, in fact, misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice. As stated above, in the instant case, though accuracy is missing in the charge framed, as required by the aforesaid provision and grave errors are committed by the learned Sessions Judge, no objection was raised and, no prejudice was caused and, by virtue of provisions of section 215 of Code of Criminal Procedure, no arguments could have been entertained. The purpose of indicating the aforesaid defect is to alert the learned Sessions Judges - against recurrence of such errors as the provisions contained in Chapter XVII clearly demonstrate, by way of guidelines, as to how the charges are required to be framed. In this respect, we may usefully refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in this respect: (1) 1998 DGLS (soft) 731: A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2702: 1998(6) S.C.C. 554 (State of Andhra Pradesh : Edlabhoom Reddy Vs. Thakkidiram Reddy: State of A.P.)6. (2) 1999 DGLS (soft) 104: A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 775: 1999(2) S.C.C. 522 (Kammari Brahmaiah V s. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.)7. 14. Now, coming to the application of section 302 ofIndian Penal Code is concerned, in our view, in the instant case, the accused came fully prepared and gave the blow of knife, the blade of which was of 27 cm and the handle was of 11 cm in length, as can be seen from seizure panchnama (Exh. 17). The blow of such knife was given all of a sudden and Surmibai died immediately thereafter on the spot. Thus, inference can very well be drawn that accused came fully prepared to kill her. 17). The blow of such knife was given all of a sudden and Surmibai died immediately thereafter on the spot. Thus, inference can very well be drawn that accused came fully prepared to kill her. We can also refer to the following judgments of the Apex Court which clearly indicate the guidelines for making the distinction between the offence of culpable homicide and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 1) 2007 DGLS (soft) 529: J.T. 2007(6) S.C. 451 (Sunder Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan)8. (2) 2007 DGLS (soft) 715: A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2437 (Manubhai Atabhai Vs. State of · Gujrat)9. 15. Thus, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order impugned in this appeal is confirmed. A certified copy, free of cost, be furnished to accused through jail authority. The fees of Mrs. Dipali Jape Ansingkar, amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, is quantified at Rs.4,0001/-. Appeal dismissed.