LexBHAGWAN BAHADURE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f _ J BHAGWA"l\J BAHADURE A V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHW ARSINGHP ANT A,JJ.] J-- Penal Code, 1860-ss. 299, 300, 302 and 304 (Part I)- ) Prosecution for murder-Stick blow given on the head of the deceased, causing serious injuries, which resulted in her death-Trial Court c relying on evidence of eye witness and related witness convicting accused under s. 302 and imposed life imprisonment-Justification of-Held: Jn the light of the facts of the case and legal principles laid down in ss. 299 and 300; and that witness being close relative does not affect credibility of witness, convictiOn altered to one under s. 304 D l._ (Part /)-Custodial sentence of I 0 years awarded-Evidence-Related '-.. witness-Evidentiary value. According to the prosecution case, K was residingwith her mother P.W-7. Appellant had come to stay with K. On the fateful day, the E appellant had a quarrel with Kon a flimsy ground and assaulted K with · the stick, giving blow on her head. K suffered serious injuries which later resulted in her death. Son ofK-PW 1 witnessed the incident and lodged ·<!- FIR. Appellant contended that PW 1 and 7 were related to Kand thus, their evidence could not be acted upon. T~al Court found the evidence F of PWs 1, 7 and 8 to be credible and cogent and convicted the appellant under s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment High Court upheld the conviction. Hence, the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, Court H 397 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. [Paras 7and10] [402-F, G; 403-E] B Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1974] 3 SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevarv. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, ;µR (1973) SC 2407 ;-Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002] 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera c and Ors. v. State ofOrissa, [2002] 8 SCC 381; Babula! Bhagwan Khandare andAnr. v. State of Maharashtra, [2005] 10 SCC 404 and Salim Sahebv. State of MP., [2007] ~ SCC 99, referred to. 2.1. In the scheme of the IPC, culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice- D versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. E This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second is 'culpable homicide of tbe second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the F punishments provided for the three grades. It is punishable under the second part of Section 304. [Para 14] [404-F, G,H; 405-A) 2.2. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under G clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not ii!_ ~he ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. The H 'intention to cause death' is not an essential requirement of clause (2). .~: BHAGWAN BAHADURE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 399 Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's A knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to brin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.