LexLAXMICHAND @ BALBUTYA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 124 A LAXMICHAND @ BALBUTYA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2005) B JANUARY 06, 2011 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND CHADRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part II and s.302 - Quarrel ~ c between parties - Victim, under the influence of liquor, refused to leave the house of the accused - Accused dragged the victim out of his house and also inflicted blow on his head with a spade, resulting in his death seven days later - Conviction u/s.302 by High Court setting aside the order of acquittal by D trial court - On appeal, held: Accused had no intention to kill the victim - However, blow was given on a vital part-Accused convicted u/s. 304 Part II with five years of rigorous )__~ imprisonment - Evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Witnesses - Sentence/Sentencing. E According to the prosecution, quarrel arose between the parties. The victim, unqer the influence of liquor, refused to le.~e the house of the appellant. The appellant F then dr~,gged the victim out of his h<?use and also inflict~Cll blow on his head with a spade. The victim becljltTte unconscious and succumbed to his injuries t s~ven days later in the hospital. PW-3 and 4 witnessed the incident. The appellant made an extra-judiciaf confession to PW-2, who later lodged a report. He also made the confessional statement to PW-7 and PW 8. G Thereafter, the appellant surrendered himself at the police station. PW-12, P.S.I. arrested the appellant and seized ~. the spade. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Court of Sessions acquitted . the accused. The High Court, however, convicted the ' H 124 LAXMICHAND @ BALBUTYA v. STATE OF 125 MAHARASHTA appellant under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the appellant A filed the instant appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. From the evidence of the eyewitnesses, PWs 3 and 4, the prosecution established that the quarrel was going on between the accused-appellant and the deceased, and the deceased was under the influence of liquor and he was adamant and refused to leave the house of the accused which forced the accused to drag him outside his house and also inflicted injuries with the C spade. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PWs 3 and 4, in this regard. On per•Jsal of their evidence, no material omission or contradiction is found to disbelieve their version. [Para 5] [130-C-E] D 1.2. The prosecution examined PW-2 who made a complaint to the police. The accused made an extra- judicial confession to PW-2. The perusal of the report strengthened the evidence of PW-2 about the statement said to have been made to him by the accused. It is also E seen from the evidence of PW-12, P.S.I. that when he was scribing the report, the accused arrived at the police station with a spade and PW-12 arrested him and seized the spade. The statement of PW-2 if considered along with other materials, need not be rejected. The accused also made a confessional statement to PW 7. PW 8 also apprised the court about the admission of guilt by the accused. Though there was no need to attach importance to the statements of PWs 7 and 8, if all the materials are ' F considered together, it proves the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who was responsible G for the death of the deceased.(Paras 6 and 7) [130-F-H; 131-A-B] 1.3. An attempt was made to record the statement of the deceased by the Special Executive Magistrate but H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A that could not be done. The evidence of PW·1, the Medical Officer supports the version of the prosecution. He Issued a certificate that the Injured person was not able to give any statement. When PW·1 was shown spade at the time of examination in court, he opined that B It would be possible that such injury could be caused with spade. The High Court held that the medical report, evidence of doctor and the statement of eye-witnesses support the case of the prosecution. PW-9 who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the c deceased also found that the cause of death was head injury, laceration of the brain matter, resulting into neurogenic shock and peripheral circulatory failure. All the said materials including oral and documentary evidence clearly prove the case of the prosecution and 0 the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is concurred with. [Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.