LexSUBHASH SHAMRAO PACHUNDE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SUBHASHSHAMRAOPACHUNDE v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA DECEMBER 8, 2005 .... r l B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: r c Section 300 Exception 4-Applicability of-Murder--Accused persons and the deceased were member of a joint family and the relationship between them were straine~n the fateful day, an almond tree was being planted in their side of open plot by the accused persons-The complainant and the deceased were standing in third portion of the open plot to which the accused persons asked them as to what they had been seeing-They replied D that they were standing on their own plot whereupon the accused persons rushed towards them with weapons-Seeing the accused persons advancing towards them the complainant and the deceased started retreating and fell into a gutter-Accused persons inflicted knife blows on the deceased, one on the chest and the other on the side near his armpit and on his stomach by using pickaxe-The incident was witnessed by the friends of the complainant- ~ E Trial court convicted the accused under S. 302-High Court affirmed the conviction-Correctness of-Held: By watching plantation of an almond tree the complainants and the deceased could not be said to have caused any annoyance or provocation to the accused-Moreover, the manner in which the deceased and the complainant were assaulted showed that the accused .__ F took undue advantage of the situation as they fell into a gutter and were helpless-The blows on the body of the deceased evidently were infected with an intention to cause bodily injuries to him and such injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death-Hence, the offence would come within the purview of culpable homicide amounting to murder as envisaged under S. 300 /PC-Under the circumstances, Exception 4 to S. 300 G /PC not attracted-Conviction upheld .,, The accused persons and the deceased were members of a family and " the relationship between them were strained due to inequitable division of the .~" "\ joint family properties. Their residential houses were side by side. On the I ~ H 594 ~!:- - - SUBHASH SHAMRAO PACHUNDE v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA 595 day of occurrence an almond tree was being plated in their side of open plot A by the accused persons. The complainant and the deceased were standing in their portion of the open plot to which accused Nos. 2 and 3 asked them as to what they had been watching. They replied that they were standing on their own plot belonging to their father whereupon the accused persons rushed towards them with weapons. Seeing the accused per"ons advancing towards them the complainant and the deceased started retreating and fell into a gutter. B Accused 'S' and 'T' allegedly assaulted the complainant whereas the deceased was assaulted by the appellant and accused 'G' with the weapons in their hands. The appellant was said to have inflicted knife blows on the deceased, one on the chest below the left nipple and the other on the side near the armpit whereas 'G' was said to gave inflicted blows on his stomach by using a pickaxe. C The said incident was witnessed by PWs 9 and 10 who were friends of the complainant. The appellant was found guilt under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. The following question arose before the Court :- Whether the offence of causing the death of the deceased at the hands of the appellant would come within the purview of the fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC or not? Dismissing the appeal, the Court D E HELD: 1. The genesis of the occurrence is not in dispute. The complainant and the deceased were watching plantation of an almond tree in their premises by the accused from their own land. They cannot be said to have caused any annoyance to them. It is the appellant and his brother who F started exchange of words by asking as to what they had been seeing. The answer by the complainant to the effect that they had been standing on their own land cannot be said to be a cause for the accused being greatly provoked so as to cause bodily injuries on the deceased and the complainant. The appellant and his companions who were armed with weapons assaulted the G deceased and the complainant who were unarmed and must have been taken by surprise. Conceivably appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were carrying iron rod, pick-axe and shovel respectively for the purpose of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.