RAMESH LAXMAN PARDESHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 901 · Decided: 10-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH LAXMAN PARDESHI 
A 
v. 
''f 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 10, 1987 
[V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
B 
I 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-S. 312 or 304 Part I-Evidence indi-
·--\ 
cated exchange of hot words-Prosecution Witnesses deliberately 
suppressed the exact words used-Whether inference could be drawn 
,c..._ . that if those words were given out, it would have damaged the prosecu-
... 
tion case-Whether the words used by the deceased and his friends 
caused provocation to accused-No premeditation-Injury caused at c 
spur of moment and in heat of passion proved fatal-Whether intention 
to cause death can be attributed-Whether the case would fall within the 
·~ 
purview ofs. 302 or 304 Part I. 
The appellant alongwith others was prosecuted for causing the 
D 
death of Sheroo Lala. It was alleged that during the exchange of hot 
words between the party of the deceased and the party of the appellant, 
the appellant inflicted a stab wound in the stomach of Sheroo with a 
Rampuri knife as a result of which he died. On trial the appellant was 
convicted for an offence under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 
-* 
sentenced to imprisonment for life and on appeal his conviction and 
E 
sentence was maintained. 
-
In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was 
contended; ( 1) that Maruti one of the accused persons had a contused 
....., lacerated wound on the head on the right occipital parietal region and 
the defence version was that when exchange started between Sheroo and 
F 
) 
Maruti, first Maruti was assaulted and then in exchange, one another 
accused took a knife and gave a blow to the deceased and thus plea of 
the accused was that this injury was inflicted on Sheroo in the exercise 
of right of private defence; and (2) that both the Courts below came to 
the conclusion that as soon as Sheroo and his party arrived near the 
hand-cart of Badshah, there was a hot exchange between the two sides. 
G 
The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not clearly stated what 
words were uttered and the trial court felt that the language was 
obscene and probably the witnesses did not like t.o mention whereas the 
High Court felt that the witnesses were not in a position to mention the 
exact words. However, both the Courts did reach a conclusion that 
there was a hot exchange between the two groups and, therefore, in 
H 
901 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A such a situation it could not be doubted that the party of the accused 
was provocated and on such grave and sudden provocation at the heat 
of the moment, the appellant who was carrying a knife took it out and 
inflicted only one blow and did not even attempt a second blow and the 
fmdings of the both the Courts is that this happened at the spur of the 
moment without pre-meditation and in the heat of the passion and, 
B therefore, at best the appellant could be convicted for an offence u~der 
s. 304 Part II because in these circumstances no intention of causing 
death could be attributed to the appellant and since he has already 
served for more than 7 years of sentence, no useful purpose would be 
served by sending him to serve a short period of sentence. 
C 
On behalf of the respondent-State, it was contended that there 
was some previous trouble between the parties which furnish some 
motive and this opportunity was taken to seek vengeance. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
D 
HELD: 1. The conviction of the appellant is altered from one 
under s. 302 to s. 304 Part I I.P.C. and since the appellant has already 
served ont more than 7 years, he is sentenced to sentence already 
undergone. [909C] 
2. The plea of right of private defence taken by the accused 
E persons including the appellant has not been accepted by the Courts 
below. Both the Courts below have rejected the story that it was not the 
appellant but another accused who wiped out a knife and inflicted the 
injury on Sheroo and that first injury .was caused on Marnti. There is 
no evidence to indicate that there was any material sufficient to come to 
the conclusion that it was Maruti who was assaulted first. On the con-
F trary the consistent evidence indicated that on arrival of Sheroo it was 
Marnti who ·started the verbal exchange and in view of this evidence, 
the submission that the injury was inflicated on Sheroo in the exercise of 
right of private defence cannot be accepted. [ 906H; 907 A-B] 
3. The Trial Court was right in concluding that "something pro-
G vocative seems to

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