LexMASUMSHA HASANASHA MUSALMAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MASUMSHA HASANASHA MUSALN.AN v. STATE OF W.AHARASHTRA FEBRUARY 24, 2(!!l:J (S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.) Criminal Law : . Penal Code, 1860 : Section 301 Patt II. Dealh-As result of injuries inflicted with a daggzr on the left side shoulder-Deceased's wife followed the accused and saw a scuffle ta!cing place between them-She also saw the accused stabbing the tL"Ceased on his A B c left side shD'.Jlderwith a daf6..r-lleld: The witness who followed the accused could not haW! sell'll him giving a blow to the deceased from the bacl:-Only when the scuffle took place she co:lld haW! seen those injuries-Hence, D conviction under S.302 set aside and conviction under S.304 Pt.II upheld. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tri"bes (Prrmntio.'1 of Atrocities) Act, 1989: E Section 3(2)(v)-A.pplicability-Held: Only 1-:hm 6/ftnce is committed 19inst a person o:i the basis th=t he b:longs to SC GT ST IWs S. 3(2)(v) apply. T".;~ D~~=~~t:~-ca::~:d t·ma cc~~v!r~ re:- cr~::::to:J tt::~::- S=tf~:! 3!?~ :'t:.-t II c~ lli:.: :"'~-:..":! COO~ 1r~~ c=:G :::::l:: ~!::l 3(2)(v) c! tr:~ S~::i:::!:-..! F Costos i:cd Sc::~::~:i Tri'.';~ (:>r-_-.'C.:tic::l cf Atrccl:f:l!l) Act, 1~ e:::l ~=== to t:~l.:;:no rl:;ero~ brt:Wc::..on::t l«r li\ ... ~ y~rn. I~c-:~t1f"'~, tr~ HIC}l Co::n cc~v!i:<..:d t!::i np;;-~lc:::t re:- tr::;i c:..o::c:J c:::!:i: &die:~ 30Z ]!'C c~d e::~t!:-..:s:od !!!.'":".! to c::L.--:rco !:~p:icc:c:r.:t re:-~:! t;~~ tr.!~tcr±.~:l tr:::J npr...::l..~!1!.1'11 cc=vfi:".!o::l i:::cr S~c:i 3(2) (v) c1' ~:i f..d. K::::co t!!!:i c:i~- G ~..cccrdb(l to tb fro"At::CltiO::l, 113 tb fetiz.'°c:l ooy, tr!:: l=::d'11 \ilC'J (PW~) fo!~e;;':.l'.l II:.:: cccc:s~ c::d sc~: tb np~hmt !ltl':!l~!~:: tb l::-:...""..ll:i:i ~.ittl n &."?r 01 ;rui !:r.t s:lc shc::!l!:ir c:ld tC:=!''""1' cnw t:!c:-:.'!l d cl::::D= to tC::i l:r.:nt:::l. Sb c!oo vet/ u ucr.::: tdd:::3 r:~:c:J l:::tt.;.':l".J it:: i:~ c::dtr!~~~ 1155 H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000J 1 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, this Court B c HELD : 1. If deceased's wife (PW-4) had been following the appel· !ant, she could not have seen him giving a blow to the deceased from the back. Only when the scuffie started taking place, injures could have been inflicted and she could have seen those injuries. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that only one serious injury was caused by the appellant to the deceased which is on his left side shoulder while all other injuries, as opined by the doctor, could have been caused during the scuffie. Hence, conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 is set aside and that of the trial court restored. [1160-E-G; 1161-F] 2. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to D a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such in· gredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. [1161·D·E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 1996. E From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.95 of the Bombay High F Court in Cd.A. Nu. 232/93 with C.:rl. A. No. 449 of l993. S.K. Pasi, Anand Singh Berwal and Sunil Kumar Jain for the Appel- !ant. V.ukesh Oiri, '\. V Dc·~npande and Pranlit Saxena for th..: Respon- dent The Judgment of the Court was deliwrcd by RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appdlant on being charged by the Ses- G sions Judge, Buldhana of having caused grievous injuries to one Saoji G amaji J adhav (the deceased) with J ambiya (knife) intentionally and know- ingly that they would result in his death and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of H Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'J. The appellant MASCMSHA HASANASHA MCSALMANv. STATE [RAJENDRA BABC, J.] 1157 stood convicted of the offt:nce punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC A and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. He was further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and tu pay fine of Rs.1,(,'00 in default to suffer rigorous imp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.