High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCriminal Appeal No. 581 Of 2021Sudhakar s/o Vasant SonawaneAge: 55 years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o. Deshshirwade, Taluka SakriDistrict Dhule. .. Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Copy to be served on thePublic Prosecutor, HighCourt of Judicature of BombayBombay Bench at Aurangabad. .. Respondent****** Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Appellant.* Mr. A. V. Lavte, APP for the Respondent. *****_______________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.Date On Which The Arguments Were Heard : 29th SEPTEMBER 2025 Date On Which The Judgment Is Pronounced : 13th OCTOBER 2025 20_______________________________________________________J U D G M E N T [ Per Mehroz K. Pathan, J. ] : 1.The Appellant has filed the present appeal, thereby challengingthe judgment dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Additional SessionsJudge, Dhule, thereby the accused/Appellant – Sudhakar Sonawanewas found guilty and punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal[1] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odtCode for life imprisonment and was acquitted for all other offencescharged alongwith the aforesaid Sections. The accused/Sudhakar hasthus filed his appeal, challenging the conviction under Section 302. 2.The case of the prosecution is as under :.That on 18.10.2017, Informant/Deepak was at home at that timehis father deceased Shriram had come home running and informedthat Sudhakar (brother of deceased Shriram) is armed with a knife andwaiting for him near bus stand. The Informant Deepak and Gauravtherefore accompanied their father on a motorcycle which was slightlyahead of them. Sudhakar intercepted the motorcycle of ShriramSonawane and before the Informant Deepak and Gaurav could reachon the spot, Appellant took out knife and gave a blow to Shriramwho collapsed on the spot. The Informant Deepak and his brotherGaurav took the deceased to Dr. Chaure Hospital in Ape Rickshaw.However Dr. Chaure examined Shriram and declared him dead. Fromthe Hospital of Dr. Chaure, the dead body was brought to GovernmentHospital, Pimpalner and thereafter the complaint was lodged by son ofthe deceased i.e. Deepak Shriram Sonawane and an offence underSection 302 and the various other Sections of IPC and 67 of theInformation Technology Act was registered against the accused person.The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed. 3.The learned trial Court has framed the charge and theprosecution had examined in all six witnesses in support of their claimand relied upon various documents to prove the guilt of the[2]
Legal Reasoning
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odtAppellant/accused and other accused persons in the said crime.4.After considering witnesses led by the prosecution as well as thedefence raised by the accused persons under Section 313 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court has convicted theAppellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 withlife imprisonment. 5.We have heard Mr. Nilesh Ghanekar for the Appellant and thelearned APP Mr. A. V. Lavte for the Respondent sole. With theirassistance, we have also gone through the record and proceedings ofthe learned trial Court. The perusal of the record and the evidence ledby the prosecution would show that PW-1/Deepak Sonawane, is theson of the deceased and is also the eye-witness to the said incident ofassault committed by the Appellant upon the deceased Shriram. ThePW-3/Shevantabai is the mother of the deceased and accused and theimportant witness PW-6 i.e. Investigating Officer/Sunil Bhabad. Theprosecution has relied upon the aforesaid three witnesses, to prove theguilt of all accused persons informing the conspiracy to kill thedeceased Shriram on the date of incident. However the learned trialcourt has found that there is no evidence to prove the charge ofcriminal conspiracy against all accused persons and therefore acquittedaccused nos. 2 to 7 from the charge of conspiracy, wrongfulconfinement, threatening and the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act.6.Insofar as the evidence against accused no.1/Sudhakar, the[3] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odtprosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony ofeye-witness/Informant PW-1/Deepak Sonawane, PW-2/Dr.Dipak Jadhavwho is the autopsy surgeon, PW-3/Shevantabai Sonawane who is themother of deceased on the point of motive. PW-4/Dipak Bhoi who isthe spot pancha and seizure pancha. The PW-5/Samadhan Sonawanewho happens to be the panch on the memorandum of the seizurepanchanama and PW-6/Investigating Officer - Mr. Sunil Bhabad. Thedeposition of PW-1/Deepak Sonawane, clearly shows that there wasdispute pertaining to agricultural land between accused who is the realuncle and the relatives including the father deceased Shriram. ThePW-1/Deepak also stated about the quarrel on account of obscenedefamatory and threatening message posted on whatsapp messanger byaccused Devendra and Kunal and thereafter threatening to killInformant and their family. The PW-1 further stated on 12.10.2017 atabout 11:00 am., accused Sudhakar and Kunal charged with axetowards the grandmother PW-3/Shevantabai (mother of accusedSudhakar and deceased Shriram) and beat the grandmother. He furtherstated that on 14.10.2017, grandmother (PW-3/Shevantabai) filedapplication in police station about the incident. 7.It is further stated on the date of incident i.e. on 18.10.2017 at07:45 am., the deceased came back from the agricultural land andinformed that accused/Sudahakar standing at bus stand holding a knifeto kill him. The witness Deepak and his brother Gaurav thereforefollowed their father deceased Shriram on a separate motorcycle andwere at a distance. Accused/Sudhakar intercepted his father’s bike and[4] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odtgave knife blow on the chest of his father. Deceased Shriram who felldown and blood was oozed from his chest. Thus there is a directimplication of the role of present Appellant in the assault on thedeceased by the weapon knife. 8.The cross-examination of the said witness does not shatter histestimony to the extent of disbelieving the truthfulness of his version.All that is brought in the cross-examination is that he does not knowthe nature of the dispute regarding the agricultural land and that hedid not state about Sudhakar threatening them in the FIR or that hedid not state about the incident dated 12.10.2017 in the FIR. We haveperused the FIR at Exhibit-56 which specifically speaks about theincident dated 12.10.2017 reported by PW-1/Deepak wherein thewitness had mentioned about the assault carried out by accusedSudhakar on PW-3/Shevantabai (mother of the deceased and accused).Thus the learned trial Court has rightly believed the said witness, whohad specifically deposed about the role of present Appellant inassaulting the deceased. 9.The next witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW-2/Dr.Dipak Jadhav, Autopsy Surgeon, who had specifically narrated theinjury sustained by the deceased and the probable cause of death wasrecorded as ‘hamorrhagic shock due to injury to vital organ lung’. Theinjury of stab wound was also noted which was 3.5 cm in length, 1cm in width and 3 cm in depth. Lower edge was sloping upwards inthe third intercostal space medial to the right. There was mid[5] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odtclavicular line. There were hemorrhagic edges. The separate injury tothe lung was also noted in the column no.20 pertaining to right lungas under : upper lobe torn (along lower medial border) hammorrhagepresent. Thus the said witness has further confirmed that the injuriessuffered by deceased are possible by the knife shown to the witnesswhich is marked as Article-A. Thus the homicidal death of thedeceased was established to bE the result of the assault committed bythe Appellant who had also recorded a memorandum under Section 27of the Evidence Act and gave discovery of the weapon. 10.The next witness PW-3/Shevantabai who is the mother of theaccused and the deceased, was also relied on by the prosecution, whospecifically stated that the Appellant/Sudhakar was quarreling withdeceased Shriram on account of share in the agricultural field and thatthe accused nos. 1 to 3 were quarreling with her husband anddemanding more land from him and that they have come there armedwith an axe and she had to run away from the spot to save herselfand that she had lodged the complaint in police station regarding thesaid incident. The testimony of the said witness PW-3/Shevantabai, isreliable inasmuch as the said witness happens to be the real mother ofthe deceased as well as the accused Sudhakar and there is noprejudice brought on record by the defense in the cross-examination,to discredit her testimony. The motive of the share in agriculturalfield lends support to the prosecution case that the Appelant Sudhakarwas having grievance about the share in the agricultural field and assuch had committed the murder of deceased. The testimony of PW-3[6] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odttherefore corroborates the version of the sole eye-witness PW-1/DeepakSonawane and therefore was rightly relied upon by the trial Court. 11.The prosecution witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 are the panchwitnesses to the spot panchnama and seizure panchanama whereasprosecution witness no.5/Samadhan Sonawane is a panch to thememorandum under Section 27 wherein the Appellant has led to thediscovery of the weapon knife which was used by him in thecommission of the said crime. The said witness PW-5/Samadhan hadsupported the prosecution case and has clearly stated about theaccused voluntarily recording a memorandum to show and agreed toshow that he would give the weapon used in commission of the crimewhich was thrown near the culvert in village Desh Shirvale. The saidmemorandum Exhibit79 was followed by the discovery of the weaponArticle-A i.e. a knife which was blood stained and was hidden in aculvert. The said incriminating article i.e. knife which was the weaponused for the commission of crime discovered at the instance ofaccused, is an important incriminating circumstance, which is notsufficiently explained by the accused. The Investigating OfficerPW-6/Sunil Bhabad had also supported the case of the prosecution,wherein he has narrated about the investigation conducted by him. 12.Thus taking into consideration the entire evidence led by theprosecution, it has been sufficiently established that the eye-witnessPW-1/Deepak Sonawane, has established the role of the presentAppellant in committing murder of the deceased by giving a knife[7] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odtblow on the chest of the deceased. The doctor who has conducted thepostmortem, has corroborated the injury suffered by the deceased andhas attributed the same to the possible from the weapon recovered atthe instance of the accused Sudhakar. The PW-3/Shevantabai whohappens to be the mother of the deceased as well as the accused, hadsufficiently supported about the motive for commission of the saidcrime. The panchas have also supported the prosecution case led inparticularly the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,recorded by the prosecution of accused Sudhakar on the next day ofhis arrest. The Appellant has also failed to give any explanation underSection 313 Cr.P.C. as to why he was implicated in the offence. Thusafter considering the entire evidence and the arguments of the learnedCounsel for the Appellant and the State and the record andproceedings, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgmentconvicting the Appellant for causing death of deceased Sudhakar, doesnot call for any interference. .However the Counsel for the Appellant at this stage hasadvanced the arguments for alternate punishment, for converting thepunishment from one under Section 302 to 304 part-II. It is thesubmission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that it is a case ofsingle blow and that no undue advantage was taken by the Appellantin committing more barbaric cruelty upon the deceased. It was hissubmission that the prosecution had brought on record that thedeceased Shriram had seen the Appellant standing at the spot ofincident with a knife in his hand. The deceased had therefore himselfapproached the accused and given a provocation to assault. It is[8] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odttherefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant thatthe accused shall be given an advantage of exception-IV of Section300, on the ground that there was no premeditation and the singleblow shows that it was inflicted in a sudden fight in the heat ofpassion without the accused/Appellant having taken any undueadvantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The explanation tothe said exception-IV also provides that it is immaterial in such caseswhich party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. It istherefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant thatthe act of the Appellant would fall under exception-IV of Section 300and therefore the punishment of the Appellant may be converted fromone under Section 302 to 304 part-II. 13.The learned APP on the other hand submits that the fact thatthe Appellant was standing on the spot of incident with a knife in hishand was sufficient enough to establish the intention andpremeditation on the part of the accused and therefore the case wouldnot fall under any of the exceptions of Section 300 of IPC and wouldnot fall under Section 304 Part-II. It is the submission that the singleblow theory is not sufficient to prove that there was no intention tocommit murder. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of VirsaSingh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 has specifically dealt withthe single blow theory and has observed that the facts andcircumstances of each case will have to be taken into considerationbefore accepting the single blow ground taken by the accused. [9] 41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt14.We have gone through the evidence led by the prosecution andthe record and proceeding with the assistance of learned Counsel forthe Appellant and the learned APP for the State. The perusal of thetestimony of the PW-2/Dr. Dipak Jadhav who has conducted thepostmortem would also show that there was no specific statement inthe examination-in-chief whether the injury was sufficient in theordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. Theparticular portion was also asked to the said Doctor that if a personwho has suffered an injury on lung is receiving prompt and propermedical aid then he can survive. The same was answered as ‘True’ bythe PW-2/Dr.Dipak Jadhav. In the absence of prosecution establishingbeyond doubt about the injury caused by accused was sufficient in theordinary course to cause death. The intention to commit murder, bythe Appellant was not sufficiently established though the knowledge isestablished. .We find that in the facts and circumstances, the fact that theAppellant was standing near the bus stand with a knife in his hand,was very much known to the deceased Shriram and thewitness/Deepak and the deceased Shriram went to the accusedSudhakar and PW-1/Deepak followed him. The act was a result ofheat of passion and the appellant did not take undue advantage.Taking into consideration that there was only a single blow caused bythe knife and that there was no other stab wound found on thedeceased, the case of the Appellant would therefore fall underexception-IV of Section 300 which is punishable under Section 304part-II. [10]
Decision
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt15.We are therefore of the opinion that though the conviction ofthe Appellant is upheld however the punishment is converted fromSection 302 IPC to Section 304 part-II of IPC to the extent of hisimprisonment already undergone till date. It is informed that theAppellant is in jail since the date of commission of offence i.e.18.10.2017 and has almost undergone the period of eight years ofimprisonment as against the maximum sentence of ten years underSection 304 part-II of IPC. Therefore we find it appropriate that theAppellant/Sudhakar shall be released from the jail forthwith, if notrequired for any other crime. 16.The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms withno order as to costs. [ MEHROZ K. PATHAN ] [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] JUDGE JUDGENajeeb..[11]