PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 06-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 595 
PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 448 of2016) 
MAY06,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Fatal assault upon the victim-
deceased at the hands of the appellant and another accused, a 
juvenile - Prosecution case was that occurrence originated on 
account of some minor grievance against the deceased that she did 
not convey a telephonic message to the appellant - The juvenile 
offender went to the house of the deceased and assaulted him -
When he was overpowered by complainant party, he started crying 
whereupon the appellant and four others rushed to the place of 
occurrence -
Appellant and juvenile offender used sticks to cause 
injuries on the head of the deceased which resulted in his death -
Conviction of appellant uls.302 attracting sentence of life 
imprisonment - On appeal, held: There was no reason for the assault 
except an assertion that the appellant was unhappy on a minor 
issue that the deceased had received some message on telephone 
but did not convey the same to the appellant - No case was made 
out by the prosecution that there was any motive for doing away 
with the life of the deceased - Conviction of appellant uls.302 set 
aside and substituted with conviction uls.304 Part I - Sentence of 
life imprisonment reduced to imprisonment for the period already 
undergone by the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It is evident that there was no motive, alleged or 
proved, for the occurrence of assault upon the deceased. In the 
given facts and scenario, it can be safely inferred that there was 
no intention on the part of the accused persons to cause death. 
However, the injuries on head did prove fatal and knowledge of 
such effect of the injuries can be fastened against the appellant. 
In view of Exception 1 or Exception 4 in Section 300 of the IPC, 
the case made out against the appellant is that of culpable homicide 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
not amounting to murder. It would be natural for the family· 
H 
595 
596 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
members of juvenile offender on hearing his cries, to rush for his 
help .and when injury on the appellant has also been proved there 
· is sufficient material to infer the reasonable possibility of a grave 
and sudden provocation. The assault on the deceased, in absence 
of intention to cause death could be on account of sudden fight 
without pre-meditation, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden 
quarrel. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC 
is set aside and is substituted with conviction under Section 304 
Part I of the IPC. The certificate of imprisonment available on 
record discloses that the appellant has by now undergone more 
than 12 years of actual imprisonment which period is sufficient to 
meet the ends of justice. Hence the sentence of imprisonment 
for life is reduced to imprisonment for the period already 
undergone by the appellant. [Paras 6, 7] [598-C-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
448 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2014 of the High Court 
of Bombay in Crl.A No. 87 of2005. 
Jayant Muth Raj, Sabrish Subramanian, Prabhurama Subramanian, 
Deepak Anand for the Appellant. 
E 
Vadrevu V. V. Pattabhiram, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and order 
under appeal dated 06.01.2014 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 
F 
dismissed Criminal Appeal No.87 of2005 preferred by the appellant and 
confirmed his conviction for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC as 
well as sentence oflife imprisonment and fine ofRs.1000/-with a default 
clause as imposed by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Solapur by judgment 
dated 31.12.2004 in Sessions Case No.132 of 2004. 
G 
H 
2. The main issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant is 
whether conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is justified 
and lawful when the prosecution, as per submissions, has failed to allege 
and prove any motive for the assault upon the deceased at the hands of 
the appellant and another accused Balu, a juvenile. It is also contended 
thatthe courts below failed to appreciate the implications of evidence of 
PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE v. STATE OF 
MAHARASHTRA [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
PW-6, Bapulal Shaikhlal Golve who is the brother of the deceased and 
an eye witriess. It was a

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