MURLIDHAR SHIVRAM PATEKAR & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 25-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 134 
MURLIDHAR SHIVRAM PATEKAR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part II, s. 300 Exception 4 -
Murder - Scuffle between accused-husband and wife and the 
C deceased, resulting in the death of the victim - Complainant 
and others witness to the incident - Conviction and sentence 
u/s. 302 - Accused pleading provocation on the part of the 
deceased and lack of evidence, however, order passed by 
trial court upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Death of 
D the victim was homicidal in the light of the evidence produced 
by prosecution witnesses - There was no premeditation on 
the part of the accused and the scuffle took place due to 
sudden provocation on the part of the deceased -
Thus, 
accused entitled to the benefit of s. 300 Exception 4 -
E Conviction of the accused modified to s.304 Part II- Sentence 
of imprisonment for 1 O years would meet the ends of justice. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The medical evidence acts as a check 
F upon the testimony of eye witnesses and also as 
independent evidence in so far as it establishes facts, 
example, nature and grievousness of the injuries suffered 
by the deceased. Therefore, the findings of PW-5, post 
mortem doctor clearly supports the findings recorded by 
G the trial court that the death of the victim was homicidal 
on account of the injuries sustained by him by means of 
a sharp weapon like knife. [Para 11] [143-F, G] 
1.2. The testimony of PW-2, eye witness is fully 
H 
134 
MURLIDHAR SHIVRAM PATEKAR v. STATE OF 
135 
MAHARASHTRA 
corroborated with the testimony of PW-3, which was 
A 
further corroborated by the testimony of PW-4, who had 
also stated the same version as deposed by PW-2 and 
PW-3. Thus, the evidence on record led by the 
prosecution eyewitnesses is sufficient to show that the 
accused nos. 1 and 2 are the persons, who caused 
B 
injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. 
[Para 12,13] [144-G, H; 145-A] 
1.3. The fact that all the witnesses saw the incidence 
of scuffle is not disputed; however, they entered the 
C 
scene only after they heard the shout of the victim. What 
transpired prior to that, between the accused and the 
deceased has not been corroborated by anyone save the 
accused no. 2. However, none of the witnesses stated 
anywhere that the knife belonged to the accused no.1, 
th0refore, the question that who had actually possessed 
D 
the knife first is still unknown. [Para 14] [145-C-E] 
1.4. The submission made by the prosecution that the 
delay in lodging the complaint or revealing the same to 
the Sarpanch was premeditated on the part of the 
E 
accused cannot be accepted on the fact and 
circumstances of the case. There was no premeditation 
on the part of the accused and the scuffle took place due 
to sudden provocation on the part of the deceased. This 
was further corroborated by the fact that the accused 
F 
themselves reached the police station and lodged a 
complaint against the deceased and confessed to the 
scuffle, thereby submitting the knife (the murder weapon) 
at the police station. [Para 18] [147-A-E] 
1.5. If· there is intent and knowledge then the same 
G 
would be a case of s. 304 Part I and if it is only a case of 
knowledge and not intention to cause murder and bodily 
injury then the same would fall u/s. 304 Part II. In the facts 
and circumstances of the instant case, it cannot be said 
H 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A that the appellants/accused had any intention of causing 
the death of the deceased when they committed the act 
in question. The incident took place out of grave and 
sudden provocation and hence, the accused are entitled 
to the benefit of s. 300 Exception 4 IPC. Thus, the act of 
B the accused-appellants was not a cruel act and the 
accused did not take undue advantage of the deceased. 
The scuffle took place in the heat of passion and all the 
requirements u/s. 300 Exception 4, IPC have been 
satisfied. Therefore, the benefit of Exception 4 u/s.300, 
c IPC, is attracted to the fact situation and both the 
appellants are equally entitled to this benefit. The 
appropriate conviction of the appellants would be u/s.304 
Part II IPC instead of s. 302 IPC. Hence, the sentence of 
imprisonment for 10 years would meet the ends of justice. 
D [Para 19] [150-A-G] 
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.