DATTU SHAMRAO VALKE AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 635 · Decided: 15-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
1., 
j 
.. 
) 
DATTU SHAMRAO V ALKE AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 15, 2005 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 96 to 99-Right of private defence-Deceased and family 
including lady members on their way to the fields for weeding operation- C 
Carrying axe, sticks which are ordinarily carried in villages while going to 
fields-Fight ensued resulting in death of two-Plea of self defence by 
accused-Held: Plea of self defence by the accused is wrongly accepted by 
High Court as arrival of deceased at the place of occurrence cannot be said 
to be for initiating fight against the accused. 
D 
Section 300 Exception 4-Quarrel between accused and deceased-Two 
per.sons died and accused also sustained serious injuries, which were not 
explained by prosecution witnesses-No evidence to say with certainty as to 
which party provoked the other and initiated the fight-Accused who had fire 
arm also did not use it against deceased-Held: It is a case to apply Exception E 
4 of Section 300 as there was sudden quarrel andfreefight between the party 
and attack was not pre-meditated affair. 
Section 304 Part I-Accused gave axe blows to deceased on vital part 
with an excessive force which resulted in his death-Held: He is to be convicted 
under Part I of Section 304 because having regard to the gravity of the 
injuries caused with a dangerous weapon, each one of which was fatal, the F 
other accused must be imputed with the intention to cause such bodily injury 
as was likely to cause death, if not the intention of causing death. 
Section 304 Part ll-Accused had afire arm but did not shoot-However 
he pic!'ked up axe from the spot and gave a blow on deceased aged 75 years-
Held: ls guilty under Section 304 Part J/ as the conduct and the manner in G 
which he attacked an old person shows that by causing the injury with axe on 
the neck of the deceased, he was having knowledge that the said act was likely 
to cause death, ·but he had no intention to cause death or such bodily injury 
as was likely to cause death. 
635 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
According to prosecution, quarrel took place between the accused and 
the deceased. Next day, the two deceased, Krishna and his son Bajirao along 
with PW 10 and his brother and 2 ladies went to village Walkewadi for the 
purpose of carrying on weeding operations in the land belonging to PW-6 
who is daughter of deceased Krishna. They were armed with axe and sticks. 
B When they came near the house of one Hindurao, which was close to the house 
of the accused, the accused armed with gun, axes and sticks attacked the 
prosecution party. The accused No. I was having a double-barrel gun which 
he fired in the air in the first instance. Accused No. 3 inflicted injuries with 
axe on the head and neck of Bajirao as a result of which he fell down and 
later succumbed to the injuries. After Bajira" fell down, accused No. 1 took 
C out the axe which Bajirao was having and then attacked Krishna and as a 
result of the injuries caused to him, Krishna died the next day in the hospital. 
Accused No. 2 is alleged to have given a stick blow on the head and the back 
of PWIO. As regards accused No.4, it is alleged that he was about to attack 
PWl with axe and when PWIO raised his right hand to ward off the attack, 
the injury was caused to his index finger. 
D 
Sessions Judge convicted appellants and other accused under Section 
302 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants (accused no.I and no.3) and ~ccused 
no.2 and 4 preferred appeal before the High Court. High Court convicted 
appellant no.2 (accused no.3) under Section 302 IPC and appellants no.I 
E (accused no.I) under Section 304 Part 1 IPC particularly after recording a 
finding that the complainant's party were aggressor and appellants had 
sufficiently discharged the burden cas't on the defence to prove their case of 
the right of private defence; that persons from the party of the accused 
including appellants sustained serious injuries including some of them of a 
life threatening nature and the prosecution witnesses had failed to explain 
F those injuries. fhe present appeal is filed by accused no.I and accused no.3. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The view taken by the High Court. on the aspect of self-
defence is not a reasonably possible view. (643-DI 
2. The evidence reveals that the incident did not happen within the 
premises of the accused o

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