LexBALU S/O ONKAR PUND & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 1 S.C.R. 970 BALU S/O ONKAR PUND & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2015) FEBRUARY 2, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 149; 304 Part-I - Allegation that accused persons committed murder of PW- C 3's wife - Prosecution case was that PW-3 had purchased land for cattle shed from A-1 - Later their relations became bitter and A-1 started pressurizing PW-3 to vacate the land - On fateful day, accused armed with weapons barged in the cattle shed and started removing the iron sheets fixed on roof - D Scuffle took place between PW-3 and accused persons - A- 1 set fire on the cattle shed - Wife of PW-3 present in cattle shed caught fire - When PW-3 tried to save his wife, A-2 inflicted axe blow on him - PW-3's wife succumbed to bum injuries - Conviction u/s. 302 by courts below - Held: It was E a fight on a spur of moment between the two male groups on the issue of taking possession of cattle shed with no intention to kill any one - Had the appellants not ablaze the cattle shed, the incident of death of PW-3's wife would not have occurred - In the absence of any overt act attributed to any F of the appellants towards the deceased for inflicting any injury to her, the appellants could not have been convicted for an offence of murder so as to attract the rigour of s.302 - Instead they are liable to conviction uls. 304 Part I. G Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: This is a case where the appellants should have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302 IPC. It is for the reason that firstly, neither there was any motive and nor H 970 BALU S/O ONKAR PUND v. STATE OF 971 MAHARASHTRA any intention on the part of any of the appellants to A eliminate the wife of PW-3. Secondly, there was no enmity of any kind with deceased in person with any of the appellants. Thirdly, the appellants had gone there to take possession of the cattle shed and not with an intention to kill any member of the family of PW-3. Fourthly, if at all, B if there was some kind of animosity or jealousy then it was towards A-1 whose panel had won the election. The deceased had nothing to do with election because she never contested tlie election. Fifthly, despite the appellants armed with weapons, none of them inflicted C any injury or gave blow to the deceased but single blow was inflicted only on PW-3, who fortunately survived. Sixthly, the deceased died due to sustaining of burn injuries, which she suffered because the appellants ablazed the cattle shed by pouring kerosene on it. [Paras 0 18, 19 and 20) [979-G-H; 980-A-C, F] Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab 1958 SCR 1495; Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444: 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 633 - relied on. E Case Law Reference: 1958 SCR 1495 Relied on 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 633 Relied on Para 15 Para 17 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2015. F From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in G Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 166-167 and 164-165 of 2015. H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R. A Gopal Jain, Sudhansu S. Choudhari, Anish R. Shah, Shivaji B M. Jadhav for the Appellants. Sushil Karanjkar, Aniruddha P. Mayee for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the accused persons against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 215 c and 225 of 2011 which arise out of judgment/order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.80 of 2008. 2. Accused Nos. 5, 8, 9 & 10 have filed appeal@ SLP(Crl.) No. 8715 of 2014 whereas appeals@ SLP(Crl.) Nos.10109- D 10110/2014 are filed by accused Nos.1and4 and appeals@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 9524-9525/2014 are filed by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6. 3. By impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the E conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Judge. Suffice it to state here that the appellants, apart from other offences were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 14~ of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.