LexSUNNY @ SANTOSH DHARMU BHOSALE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1440 : 2024 INSC 878 Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 4664 of 2024) 20 November 2024 [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether it was the appellant-accused who assaulted the victim-deceased due to which the death of the deceased has occurred; whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, deserves to be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and s.304 Part-I – Prosecution case that PW-6 and her husband-victim went to the house of PW-5 – Appellant-accused came in front of the house of PW-5 and started abusing PW-5 and his wife on account of a loan they had taken – Victim intervened – Appellant abused victim as well – Appellant left – Victim went behind the appellant – Sound of quarrel was heard – After rushing to the spot, appellant was seen assaulting victim with a bamboo stick – Injured victim was taken hospital, where he was declared dead – Trial Court Court convicted appellant u/s. 302 IPC – Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court: Held: Taking into consideration the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, there is no error in the finding of the trial court and the High Court that it is the present appellant who assaulted the victim-deceased due to which the death of the deceased has occurred – From the testimony of PW-6 itself, it will be clear that after a scuffle took place at the house of PW-5, the accused appellant went from there and the deceased followed him – Thereafter, as to how the assault took place is not clear either from the evidence of PW-5 or from the evidence of PW-6 – It is however clear that after the accused appellant left the place, the deceased followed him – After that, as to what had happened between the deceased and the appellant is not clear from the evidence of the eyewitnesses – From the evidence * Author [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1441 Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra of PW-6 itself, it is clear that the deceased had nothing to do with the incident – It was just that deceased had intervened when appellant was abusing PW-5 and his wife – Irked by the intervention of the deceased, the appellant started abusing the deceased and thereafter went away – It is thus clear that no motive has come on record as to why the appellant wanted to commit the murder of the deceased – The evidence of the eyewitnesses also does not show that the appellant had come with any weapon – On the contrary, the medical evidence would show that the injuries caused are with the bamboo stick, which is commonly available in a village – The possibility of the deceased following the appellant and an altercation taking place between them and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion the appellant assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out – The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased would also not show that the appellant had taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt – The conviction of the appellant u/s.302 IPC, therefore, deserves to be altered to one under Part I of s.304 IPC. [Paras 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860 List of Keywords Section 304 Part-I of Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860; Sudden fight; Heat of passion; Benefit of doubt. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4664 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLA No. 927 of 2015 Appearances for Parties D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Rohan Kochar, Jayanta Kumar Biswas, K. Sriram, Advs. for the Appellant. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Advs. for the Respondent. 1442 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 5th August, 2020, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter, “High Court”), in Criminal Appeal No. 927 of 2015, whereby the High Court has negatived the challenge to the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2015, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge – 3, at Satara (hereinaft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.