LexLAXMAN KALU NIKALJE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H LAXMAN KAJ,U NIKAJ,JE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA April 5, 1968 685 [M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. GROVER. JJ.J Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) ss. 299 altd 300-Scope of- Wben appellant and his wife's brother-the deceased, were ~uarrelliag about the time of his wife's going with him, the appellant whipped out a knife and gave one blow to the deceased. by which an injury on the right side of the chest penetrating 4" deep into the che.'lt cavity was caused, resulting in death. The appellant was convicted under •· 302 !PC. HELD : The case fall within the third pan of s. 299 IPC and was punishable under the second part of s. 304 !PC as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Though the injury was serious, it did not penetrate the lung. Death was caused mainly because it cut the axiliary artery and veins and caused shock and haemorrhage leading to death. The quarrel was not such as would have prompted the appellant to make a homicidal attack. · Thirdly of s. 300 requires that the bodily injury must be intended and the bodily injury intended to be caused must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This clause is in two parts; the fint part is a subjective one which indicates that the injury must be an inten· tional one and not an accidental one; the -second part is objective in that looking at the injury intended to be caused, the court must be satisfied that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The first pan was complied with because the injury which was intended to be caused was the one which was found on the person of the deceased. But the second pan was not fulfilled. because but for the fact that the injury caused the severing of anery, death might not have ensued. In other words. looking at the matter objectively, the injury which the appellant intended to cause did not include specifically the cutting of the artery but to wound the deceased in the neighbourhood 'Of the clavicle. There- fore, thirdly of ~. 300 did not cover the case. Inasmuch as death had been caused, the matter came within at least culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There again, s. 299 is in three parts. The first part takes in the doing of an act with the intention of causing death. The appellant did not intend causing death and the first pan of s. 299 did not apply. The second part deals with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Here again, the intention must be to cause the precise injury likely to cause death and that also wa1 not the intention of appellant. The matter therefore came wi•hin the third part. 'the act was done with the knowledge that the apPellant was likely by such act to cause the death Of the deceased. [690 B-691 CJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1966. 686 SUPll.BMB OOUll.T llBPOll.TS ( 1968) 3 S.C.R. . Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 19, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1963, . M. R. K. Pillai, for the appellant. D. P. Bhandari and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah C. J. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay setting aside the acquittal of the appellant Laxman Kalu Nikalje and convicting him under s. 302 with a seotence of imprisonment for life. The facis of the case are as follows : This Laxman was married to Shantabaii (P.W. 3) who is the daughter of one Bhika Ganpat Nikam (P.W. 2) a Railway employee working at a Railway · crossing at Gartad District Dhullia. This crossing is situated on the Dhulia-Cbalisgaon Railway line. Bhika was residing in one of the quarters intend- A B c ed for such people near the Railway crossing with his wife D Gangubai, his sons Ramrao, Laxman and Bharat. Shantabai was married some five· years before the occurrence and lived with her husband, Laxman at Ganeshpur Pimpri in Taluka Chalis- gaon. Some days before Nag Panchami of the year 1962 Shantabai was . brought to her parent's place. She stayed with them tfil E the 10th August 1962. Laxman wanted his wife back and arrived at Gartad to take her away to his own house. Bhika put in some excuses saying that he had no money and he could only send his daughter back after he gets his pay on the 2 lst or the 22nd. The excuse given by Bhika and his wife G
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.