ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 03-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 8 S.C.R. 863 
ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2013) 
MAY 3, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 Exception 4 ands. 304 (Part 
II) - Trial and conviction uls. 302134 by courts below - Held: 
The nature of injury inflicted by accused, the part of body on 
which inflicted, weapons of offence and circumstances in 
which injury was inflicted, do not suggest that the accused had 
the intention to kill the deceased - Therefore, accused entitled 
to benefit of Exception 4 to s.300 - The case would fall uls. 
304 (Part II) - Conviction altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) and 
sentence reduced to 5 years RI. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.357 -
Compensation to the victim - Award of - Held: Compensation 
u/s.357 is not ancillary to other sentences, but in addition 
thereto - It is mandatory duty of the Court to apply its mind 
to the question of awarding compensation in every criminal 
case - The court needs to take a summary enquiry regarding 
capacity of the accused to pay, to decide the question of 
compensation to victim - In the present case, courts below 
remained oblivious to provisions of s. 357 - In view of the facts 
of the case and the time lag since the offence was committed, 
resort to s.357 not taken by the Court - However, the courts 
are cautioned to remain careful - Copy of present judgment 
directed to be forwarded to the Registrar General of High 
Courts for circulation among judges handling criminal trials 
and appeals. 
863 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Interpretation of Statutes - Directory or mandatory nature 
of the provision of a statute - Ascertainment of- To be done 
from the intention of the legislature and not from the language 
of the provision - Mere use of words 'may' or 'shall' is not 
conclusive - To find out the legislative intent, court to examine 
B 
scheme of the Act, purpose and object underlying the 
provision, consequences likely to ensue or inconvenience 
likely to result, if the provision is read one way or the other. 
Appellant-accused alongwith the co-accused was 
C prosecuted u/ss.302/34 IPC. Trial court convicted both 
the accused finding them guilty for the offence of murder 
and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine of 
Rs.2000/- with default clause. The High Court, in appeal, 
0 
confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant-
accused and acquitted the co-accused. Hence the 
present appeal. 
The questions for consideration in the appeal were 
whether, in the facts of the case, the appellant-accused 
E was liable for lesser offence of culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder punishable u/s. 304 Part I or II IPC; 
and whether the courts have a duty to advert to the 
question of awarding compensation to the victim and 
F 
G 
record reasons while granting or refusing relief to them 
and whether compensation u/s. 357 Cr.P.C. was required 
to be awarded. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The incident in question took place on a 
sudden fight without any premeditation and the act of the 
appellant hitting the deceased was committed in the heat 
of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the appellant 
H having taken undue advantage or acting in a cruel or 
ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD v. STATE OF 
865 
MAHARASHTRA 
unusual manner. Even according to the prosecution A 
version, there was no premeditation in the commission 
of the crime. There is not even a suggestion that the 
appellant had any enmity or motive to commit any 
offence against the deceased. The weapon used was not 
lethal nor was the deceased given a second blow once 
B 
he had collapsed to the ground. The prosecution case 
was that no sooner the deceased fell to the ground on 
account of the blow on the head, the appellant and his 
companions took to their heels - a circumstance that C 
shows that the appellant had not acted in an unusual or 
cruel manner in the prevailing situation so as to deprive 
him of the benefit of Exception 4. During the exchange 
of hot words between the deceased and the appellant, all 
that was said by the appellant was that if the deceased 
0 
did not keep quiet, even he would be beaten like a dog. 
The use of these words also clearly shows that the · 
intention of the appellant and his companions was at 
best to belabour him and not to kill him as such. The 
cumulative effect of all these circumstances should 
E 
entitle the appellant t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.