Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2203 (BOM)

Pandharinath v. State of Maharashtra

2014-10-29

T.V.NALAWADE

body2014
JUDGMENT T.V. Nalawade, J. 1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 109/1999 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. In the case filed against the appellant for offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., the appellant is convicted and sentenced by the Trial court for offence punishable under section 304(I) of I.P.C. He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/- is imposed on him. Both the sides are heard. It is the case of State that on the night between 25.3.1999 and 26.3.1999 when a lady by name Smt. Kantabai, who was aged about 40 years at the relevant time, was sleeping in the courtyard of her house, deceased Pradeep came there. It was 11.30 p.m. Pradeep tried to establish illicit relations with the lady and on that night, he wanted to have sex with her. Kantabai was deserted by her husband and she was living with her daughter in the said house. Accused/appellant was sleeping inside of the house of Smt. Kantabai at the relevant time. Appellant is not a relative of Kantabai. 2. When deceased Pradep slept at the place where Kantabai was sleeping, Kantabai woke up and she started shouting. Accused came out of the house, he picked up a wooden plank which was part of firewood lying in the courtyard and gave two blows of wooden plank on the head of Pradeep. Pradeep sustained bleeding injuries and he collapsed in the courtyard. Accused then dragged Pradeep towards open space situated in front of liquor shop, at the distance of 100 to 150 ft. and accused left Pradeep there and went away. On 26.3.1999 at about 7.30 a.m. accused again visited the house of Smt. Kantabai and when he found that there was a pool of blood in the courtyard of the house of Kantabai, he spread cattle dung over the blood to conceal the blood. 3. On 26.3.1999 some persons noticed the dead body of Pradeep and they informed Vijayan, uncle of deceased. Vijayan realized that somebody had murdered Pradeep and he gave report that unknown persons had murdered Pradeep and that was done probably to rob Pradeep. Crime at C.R. No. 45/1999 came to be registered in M.I.D.C. Jalgaon Police Station for aforesaid offence and the investigation was started. 4. Vijayan realized that somebody had murdered Pradeep and he gave report that unknown persons had murdered Pradeep and that was done probably to rob Pradeep. Crime at C.R. No. 45/1999 came to be registered in M.I.D.C. Jalgaon Police Station for aforesaid offence and the investigation was started. 4. Vasudev, the P.S.I., who was attached to aforesaid police station made the investigation of the case. When he was preparing spot panchanama, he realized that there was blood on the spot where the dead body was lying and there was trail of blood stains between this spot and the courtyard of the house of Smt. Kantabai. Panchanama was prepared accordingly in presence of panch witnesses. The statement of Kantabai came to be recorded on 26.3.1999 and then it became clear that the accused had committed the murder of Pradeep. Accused came to be arrested on 26.3.1999. 5. On 27.3.1999 accused gave statement under section 27 of Evidence Act in present of panch witnesses and on that basis, the wooden plank was recovered. On 27.3.1999 search of the house of accused was taken and from there, blood stained clothes of the accused came to be recovered. During preparation of spot panchanama the earth samples having blood stains were taken over from both the aforesaid spots. These all samples along with the clothes of the deceased, clothes of the accused and their blood samples were sent to C.A. Office. The weapon, wooden plank was also sent. Blood was detected on the wooden plank, weapon. The deceased was having blood group 'B'. On the clothes of accused and deceased, blood of group 'B' was detected. The results of the blood of accused were inconclusive. 6. The charge was framed for the aforesaid offence and the accused pleaded not guilty. Smt. Kantabai (P.W. 5) and her daughter Anita (P.W. 9) are examined by the prosecution to prove the offence. Panch witnesses on panchanamas of recovery of weapon and clothes of the accused turned hostile. However, the panch witness on the spot panchanama supported the case of prosecution. In the evidence of Investigating Officer, the recovery of weapon made on the basis of statement given by the accused and recovery of clothes from the house of accused is proved by prosecution. However, the panch witness on the spot panchanama supported the case of prosecution. In the evidence of Investigating Officer, the recovery of weapon made on the basis of statement given by the accused and recovery of clothes from the house of accused is proved by prosecution. The Trial Court has, however, not believed the evidence of Investigating Officer and it is observed that there is no independent corroboration of the evidence of panch witness. 7. The accused took the defence of total denial. In the statement given under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the accused contended that he owed some amount to Smt. Kantabai and due to that dispute, he is falsely implicated in the case by Kantabai. 8. The Trial Court has believed both the aforesaid eye witnesses. The Trial Court has, however, held that there is probability that due to aforesaid act of the deceased, his mis-behaviour with Kantabai, there was grave and sudden provocation to the accused and the offence was committed due to such grave and sudden provocation. The Trial Court has held that the offence falls under exception (I) to section 300 of I.P.C. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under section 304(I) of I.P.C. 9. To prove that Pradeep died homicidal death, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, P.M. report and also the evidence of Medical officer, who conducted the P.M. examination and the panch witnesses and also the direct evidence. The evidence of Dr. Bavaskar (P.W. 11), Medical Officer shows that he conducted the P.M. examination on 26.3.1999 between 3.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. The Medical Officer found one C.L.W. over left frontal area of size 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep and it was from anterior to posterior region. There was one more C.L.W. over left parietal area above pina of left ear and its size was 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep. The second injury had caused depressed linear fracture of skull bone from anterior to posterior region. This injury had caused bleeding in the brain, there was injury to the brain. The death took place due to this injury. The P.M. report at Exh. 41 is duly proved in the evidence of Medical Officer and its contents are consistent with the oral evidence of Medical Officer. This injury had caused bleeding in the brain, there was injury to the brain. The death took place due to this injury. The P.M. report at Exh. 41 is duly proved in the evidence of Medical Officer and its contents are consistent with the oral evidence of Medical Officer. During the evidence of Medical Officer, the weapon (Article 10) was shown to Medical Officer and Medical Officer has given evidence that the aforesaid injuries can be caused by such weapon. Suggestions given by the defence counsel that the injuries can be caused in motor vehicle accident are denied by the Medical Officer. 10. The evidence of Medical Officer (P.W. 11) further shows that there were other injuries like abrasions over left lumber area above iliac crest. Abrasion was having red colour. The aforesaid medical evidence needs to be kept in mind as the medical evidence needs to give corroboration to the ocular versions. 11. The aforesaid medical evidence is independently sufficient to prove that Pradeep died homicidal death. It needs to be observed here that it is unfortunate that proper evidence was not brought on the record from Medical Officer and nothing is said as to whether aforesaid injury is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Whenever there are such injuries and the death takes place, it is the duty of the State and also the Court to ascertain as to whether such injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. 12. Kantabai (P.W. 5) has given evidence that on that night the accused was sleeping in the vicinity and when deceased slept on her bed, she shouted for help. She has specifically stated in the evidence that the deceased wanted to have sex with her. She has deposed that accused then came there. She has admitted that accused was known to her and he used to sleep in her house and there is such evidence from her daughter also. It can be said that she has avoided to admit that the deceased was known to her. 13. Kantabai has given evidence that accused rushed to the spot, he picked up a piece of firewood lying in the courtyard and gave two blows of it on the head of the deceased. It can be said that she has avoided to admit that the deceased was known to her. 13. Kantabai has given evidence that accused rushed to the spot, he picked up a piece of firewood lying in the courtyard and gave two blows of it on the head of the deceased. She has given evidence that she had requested the accused not to assault the deceased, but accused did not listen to her. She has deposed that when the deceased collapsed in the courtyard, they noticed that there was bleeding through the injuries sustained on the head. She has given evidence that accused then dragged the deceased towards liquor shop, he left the deceased there and he went away. She has deposed that on the next morning, accused again came to her house and he threw weapon in the garden situated in the vicinity. Such evidence, about disposal of weapon was not expected from her in view of her previous statement. 14. In the cross examination of Kantabai (P.W. 5), it is brought on the record that her husband had deserted her about six months prior to the date of incident. She has admitted that in the present crime she was also arrested by the police. In the police statement, she had not specifically given the number of blows and the omission in that regard is duly proved by the defence. It is brought on the record in her cross examination that a currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination was found in the courtyard when the spot panchanama was drawn. Though these circumstances are there, they have not created reasonable doubt about the case of prosecution and due to these circumstances the evidence of P.W. 5 cannot be discarded. There are other circumstances and there is also the evidence of Anita, daughter of P.W. 5, and Anita was hardly aged about 10 years at the relevant time. As there is the other material to corroborate the version of Kantabai, the aforesaid circumstances brought on the record during her cross examination cannot be given much weight. 15. Anita (P.W. 9) has given evidence on material points which is similar to the evidence of Kantabai. The learned defence counsel has cross examined Anita to create probability that Kantabai is of bad character. Even if it is presumed that there is such probability, this circumstance cannot help the accused. 15. Anita (P.W. 9) has given evidence on material points which is similar to the evidence of Kantabai. The learned defence counsel has cross examined Anita to create probability that Kantabai is of bad character. Even if it is presumed that there is such probability, this circumstance cannot help the accused. The evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 shows that one lady by name Kumbharin was also sleeping in the courtyard of the house of Kantabai. She is not examined by the prosecution. The non examination of Kumbharin has not affected the case of prosecution and as there is other evidence available to corroborate the versions of the two eye witnesses, adverse inference cannot be drawn against State due to non examination of Kumbharin. 16. In the cross examination, Anita (P.W. 9) has admitted that the deceased had visited their house on one occasion and Kantabai had driven him out of the house on that occasion. In her cross examination, it is brought on the record that after the incident was over, the accused threw the weapon in the courtyard. These circumstances also have not created reasonable doubt about the case of the prosecution. They cannot help the accused in any way when there is convincing direct evidence of these two witnesses on material points. 17. In the evidence of Lalusingh (P.W. 7) and Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) Vasudeo, the spot panchanama is proved as Exh. 21. Evidence of spot panchanama shows that there was trail of blood stains from the spot where the dead body of Pradeep was lying up to the courtyard of the house of Kantabai. Cow dung was found to be spread over the blood which was present in the courtyard. Earth samples mixed with blood were collected from both these spots by the-police under spot panchanama. The courtyard had fencing of barbed wire. One currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination was also found in the courtyard and there were blood stains on this currency note. C.A. report has confirmed that there was the blood in earth samples and currency note. These circumstances have given necessary corroboration to the direct evidence. They also speak something about the motive. 18. There is nothing on the record to show that P.W. 9 and P.W. 5 had any reason to give false evidence against the accused. C.A. report has confirmed that there was the blood in earth samples and currency note. These circumstances have given necessary corroboration to the direct evidence. They also speak something about the motive. 18. There is nothing on the record to show that P.W. 9 and P.W. 5 had any reason to give false evidence against the accused. The evidence of child witness, P.W. 9, needs to be believed and it does not appear that she was tutored. It is already observed that there is possibility that Kantabai (P.W. 5) has tried to avoid few things like her acquaintance with the deceased and her relations, probably illicit, with the accused. Even if, it is presumed that accused had such relations with Kantabai, this circumstance cannot help the accused and it will only give some material on motive for the crime. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively submitted that the offence committed by the accused falls under section 304(II) of I.P.C. and not under section 304(I) of I.P.C. On this point, he placed reliance on one case reported as AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 34 [Joseph Vs. State of Kerala]. The facts of the reported case show that quarrel had taken place over trivial incident and in the quarrel, accused had dealt two blows of stick on the head of deceased. The quarrel had taken place over stake of gambling money. In view of the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court held that the offence committed by the accused was covered by only section 304(II) of I.P.C. and accused was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years. 20. The facts and circumstances of each and every criminal case are always different. Relevant facts and circumstances of the present case can be quoted as under:- (i) The accused was sleeping in the house of Kantabai who was deserted by her husband, (ii) At the relevant time, age of Kantabai was around 40 years, age of the accused was around 35 years and age of the deceased was around 28 years. (iii) The incident took place at about 11.30 p.m. in the courtyard of the house of Kantabai. (iv) The deceased had entered the courtyard which had barbed wire fencing in the night time. (v) The deceased wanted to establish illicit relations with Kantabai and on that night, he wanted to have sex with her. (iii) The incident took place at about 11.30 p.m. in the courtyard of the house of Kantabai. (iv) The deceased had entered the courtyard which had barbed wire fencing in the night time. (v) The deceased wanted to establish illicit relations with Kantabai and on that night, he wanted to have sex with her. Kantabai was against it and so, she shouted. (vi) The currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination having blood stains was found in the courtyard during preparation of the spot panchanama on the next day. (vii) Wooden plank, piece of firewood lying in the courtyard was picked up by the accused and it was used as weapon for assaulting the deceased. Accused could have avoided use of weapon. (viii) Two blows of wooden plank were given on the head of the deceased by accused and aim for blows was head of the deceased. (ix) Force was used by the accused while giving blows and due to that one blow caused depressed fracture of skull. (x) Kantabai had requested not to assault the deceased, but the accused did not listen to her. 21. The Trial Court has held that there is probability that there was grave and sudden provocation caused due to the conduct of the deceased. Though the aforesaid circumstances are not quoted by the Trial Court for drawing such inference, there are aforesaid circumstances which are established by the evidence of prosecution. 22. For considering the alternate submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the relevant provisions of I.P.C. need to be seen. In section 299 of I.P.C.culpable homicide is defined as under:- "299. Culpable homicide.-- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide." In section 300 of I.P.C., 'murder' is defined and the section runs as under:- "300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or 3rdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." The evidence on the record shows that weapon was used even when in view of the circumstances that there were two ladies, accused was also outsider, he could have used fist blows or kicks or he could have simply driven the deceased out of the compound of Smt. Kantabai by scolding him. The aforesaid material is sufficient to prove that the deceased had entered the compound with the intention to have sex with Kantabai. Though there is no specific evidence on previous enmity of the accused with the deceased, it is brought on the record by defence in the evidence of Anita (P.W. 9) that on the first occasion when the deceased had tried to enter their house, Kantabai had driven him out of the house. The evidence is sufficient to prove that two blows of wooden plank were given by the accused and they were on head and they were aimed at head. Kantabai had requested the accused not to assault, but the accused did not listen to her and he dealt two blows on the head of the deceased. Accused then shifted deceased Pradeep from place of offence to open space situated at the distance of 100-150 feet and the deceased was left there. 23. From the material discussed above, it is not possible to infer that when the accused took Pradeep towards liquor shop, they had realized that Pradeep was dead. Accused then shifted deceased Pradeep from place of offence to open space situated at the distance of 100-150 feet and the deceased was left there. 23. From the material discussed above, it is not possible to infer that when the accused took Pradeep towards liquor shop, they had realized that Pradeep was dead. Though, in this case, it is difficult to draw inference that there was intention to murder Pradeep, the aforesaid material is sufficient to infer that the accused gave two blows intentionally on the head of the deceased and such blows were likely to cause death of Pradeep. Such act falls under section 299 secondly of I.P.C. and it is punishable under section 304(I) of I.P.C. 24. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intention on the part of the accused and only knowledge can be inferred as mentioned in section 299 thirdly of I.P.C. and section 304(II) of I.P.C., cannot be accepted in view of the facts of the present case. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that wooden plank cannot be called as dangerous weapon and so, intention cannot be gathered from the act of the accused. This submission is also not acceptable. No hard and fast rule can be made out in this regard on the basis of nature of weapon used. In view of the facts of the case, even when weapon was not deadly, due to the act of accused like using weapon which he could have avoided and act of giving of two blows on the head, the accused may well be presumed to have anticipated the death and inference can be drawn accordingly. Thus, in the present case, the blows were given on the head intentionally, the injuries were caused intentionally and knowledge can be inferred that the accused knew that such blows were likely to cause death. 25. In the present case, evidence is given on subsequent conduct of the accused that he took Pradeep to other spot and he left Pradeep there. In such a case on the basis of such subsequent conduct of the accused inference cannot be drawn that there was the intention of murder. In view of these circumstances, section 300 firstly of I.P.C. cannot be used against the accused, but section 300 secondly of I.P.C. can be definitely used against him. 26. In such a case on the basis of such subsequent conduct of the accused inference cannot be drawn that there was the intention of murder. In view of these circumstances, section 300 firstly of I.P.C. cannot be used against the accused, but section 300 secondly of I.P.C. can be definitely used against him. 26. If the provisions of sections 299 and 300 of I.P.C. are compared, it can be said that when Court reaches to the conclusion that act of the accused falls under one of the four clauses defining 'murder' in section 300 of I.P.C., the further finding that the accused can be convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 304(II) of I.P.C. is not possible. This is because of the wording of section 304 of I.P.C. which is as under:- "304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.-- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." Part (II) of section 304 of I.P.C. specifically excludes 'intention'. 'Intention' is there in section 300 of I.P.C. "in first three parts of definition". When there was intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as the offender knew to be likely to cause death, the Court has to give finding that the offence of murder defined in particular firstly or secondly of section 300 of I.P.C. is proved. When there was intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as the offender knew to be likely to cause death, the Court has to give finding that the offence of murder defined in particular firstly or secondly of section 300 of I.P.C. is proved. The case can be brought down to lower degree, to the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder only by using exceptions given in section 300 of I.P.C. When the Court comes to the conclusion that there was such intention, but the exception as mentioned in section 300 of I.P.C. is available, the lower degree of offence that can be made out in such case will be punishable under section 304(I) of I.P.C. and not under section 304(II) of I.P.C. In view of this position of law, the case cited supra by the accused cannot be used to hold that the offence falls under section 304(II) of I.P.C. Exception No. 1 given under section 300 of I.P.C. is as under:- "Exception 1.-When culpable homicide is not murder.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:- First.-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly.-That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.-Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact." 27. In the case reported as AIR 1962 Supreme Court 605 (V 49 C 93): (2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 401) [K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra], the Apex Court has discussed and interpreted the aforesaid provisions. For using the aforesaid exception, two essential conditions are required to be made out viz. (i) grave and sudden provocation, and (ii) in consequence of which the accused was deprived of power of self control. State of Maharashtra], the Apex Court has discussed and interpreted the aforesaid provisions. For using the aforesaid exception, two essential conditions are required to be made out viz. (i) grave and sudden provocation, and (ii) in consequence of which the accused was deprived of power of self control. Such provocation must have had an adequate cause i.e. it must be such provocation as will upset an ordinary man/normal reasonable man. In Nanavati's case, (2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 401) cited supra, it is laid down that no abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. Though the learned Judge of the Trial Court has not considered the relevant circumstances, this Court has quoted those circumstances in the case. In any case, the finding that exception No. 1 to section 300 can be used in favour of the accused is not challenged by the State. 28. In view of the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is no possibility of interference in the finding of conviction given by the Trial Court. On the point of penalty also, this Court holds that the penalty given is just and proper. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is to surrender his bail bond for undergoing the sentence. The learned counsel for appellant was appointed at the State expenses and so, the amount of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand) is to be given to him through legal aid.