LexRAVINDRA SHALIK NAIK AND ORS. versus ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 1080 A RAVINDRA SHALIK NAIK AND ORS. v. ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 245-246 of 2009) B FEBRUARY 9, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s. 300, Exception 4 and ss. 302134 and 324 - Sudden fight - Accused inflicting injuries on victims with axe, knife and 'gupti' - Resulting in death of one of the victims - Conviction by trial court u/s 302134 and s.324 - Upheld by High Court- D HELD: Conviction altered from s.302134 to s. 304(part I) - Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed. The appellants (A-1 to A-3) were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable uls 302134 IPC. The prosecution case was that on a trivial issue, an altercation E took place between PW-3, the husband of PW-1, and A- 2. A-1 and A-3 also joined A-2. 'K' the father-in-law of PW- 1 tried to intervene and pacify all of them. A-1 to A-3 went inside their house, which was close by, and returned with axe, knife and 'gupti'. All the three inflicted injuries on the F head and abdomen of 'K'. A-1 and A-2 also inflicted injuries on PW-3. 'K' was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The trial court convicted all the .. accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life ul s 302134 IPC. A-1 was also convicted and sentenced uls G 324 IPC. The accused having remained unsuccessful before the High Court, filed the instant appeals. Allowing the appeals in part, the Court -~ HELD:1. So far as the reliability of the evidence of H 1080 .. t -" . ~ - .... :Ii\ RAVINDRA SHALIK NAIK AND ORS. v. STATE OF 1081 MAHARASHTRA PWs 1 and 3 is concerned their evidence is clear and A cogent; and though they were subjected to incisive cross examination, nothing material could be elicited to discard their evidence. (Para 3] (1083-G] 2. As regards appellants' plea that the case is B covered under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC, for bringing in operation of the Exception, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without the offender having taken undue c advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. Considering the D background facts, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. The custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 6 and 7] [1084-B; 1085-G-B-C] Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat 2003 E (5) Supreme 223; Parka sh Chand v. State of H.P. 2004 (11) . SCC 381; Byvarapu Raju v. State of A.P. and Anr. 2007 (11) SCC 218 and Buddu Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2009) 1 SCR 178, referred to. Case Law Reference: F 2003 (5) Supreme 223 referred to para 6 2004 (11) sec 381 referred to para 6 2001 (11) sec 218 referred to para 6 G (2009) 1 SCR 178 referred to para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 245-246 of 2009. H 1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Crl. Appeal Nos. 193 and 251 of 2002. C.N. Sree Kumar, P.R. Nayak and Dushyant Parashar for B the Appellants. c Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellants. The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under D Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The appellant Ravindra was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Appellants Ravindra, Naresh and Shalikrao are hereinafter referred to as A-1, A-2 and A-3. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions E Judge, Yuvatmal had found the appellants guilty as aforenoted. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Appellant Shalik is father of appellants Ravindra and Naresh. On 13.11.1999, at about 7 p. m. appellant Naresh was F going to his house and was carrying bundle of cotton/grass. The road to his house was adjacent to the house of complainant Vandana (PW1). On t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.