Bombay High Court
Murlidhar @ Murlya S/O Gangaram ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 October, 2016
Bench: V.L. Achliya
sgp 1 APEAL279.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2016
Murlidhar @ Murlya S/o Gangaram Pawara,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Bhoiti, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .. Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.I. Shirpur Police Station,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Respondent
..............
Mr P. B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant
Mr A. V. Deshmukh, APP for respondent/State
..............
CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 24.08.2016.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 19.10.2016.
JUDGMENT : -
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment & Order dated 10.08.2015 in
Sessions Case No. 173/2014 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Dhule whereby the appellant held guilty of offence u/s 304 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, the
appellant has preferred this appeal.
sgp 2 APEAL279.2016.doc
2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of appeal are summarized as
under :
(a) On 13.07.2014, Ratilal Gangaram Pawara (PW3) resident of
Bhoiti, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule lodged complaint with Police
Station Shirpur alleging therein that on 11.7.2014 at about 7.00
p.m., while his father Gangaram Pawara was weaving rope of cot
in the courtyard of their house and his mother Sahabai, brother
Shantaram (PW4) and Tukaram were helping him in weaving of
rope of cot, at that time the accused came there in a drunken
condition and demanded money to his father for consuming
liquor. His father refused to pay money and asked him to go
away. The accused insisted to pay money and said that he would
not leave the place without taking money and started to give
abuses to his father. His father asked the accused in enraged
condition as to whether he is going from that place or not.
Thereon, the accused lifted sickle lying there, which his father
was using for weaving cot and inflicted blow over the cheek and
left leg of his father and ran away from the spot leaving the sickle
on the spot. The assault made resulted into causing severe
sgp 3 APEAL279.2016.doc
injuries to his father. Initially he was taken to Hospital at Shirpur.
Later on shifted to Civil Hospital at Dhule. Deceased succumbed
to injuries at about 11:00 p.m., while undergoing treatment at
Civil Hospital, Dhule. On 12.07.2014, the dead body of deceased
brought to his village where last rites were performed. On next
day i.e. 13.07.2014, Ratilal (PW3) lodged report in respect of
incident dt. 11.07.2014.
(b) On the basis of the report lodged by Ratilal (PW3)(Exh. 48), the
offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered
with Police Station Shirpur vide C.R. No. 151/2014 as against the
appellant/accused. P.S.I.-Raufkhan Hurmatkhan Pathan (PW6)
conducted the investigation. He visited the spot of incident and
prepared panchanama of scene of offence vide Exh. 10. At the
time of drawing spot panchanama, the complainant (PW3)
produced the sickle (Article No. 3) which was used in commission
of offence by the accused which was seized. Statements of the
witnesses such as Shantaram Pawara (PW4), Magan Pawara
(PW5) and other witnesses were recorded. The inquest
sgp 4 APEAL279.2016.doc
panchanama as well as clothes of the deceased were seized by the
Police Station Dhule, while the deceased was lying admitted and
died in the Hospital on 11.07.2014. He had taken charge of
those clothes. The dead body of the deceased was referred for
post-mortem on 12.07.2014 by official of Police Station, Dhule.
He collected those papers which includes the inquest
panchanama & Post-mortem report. He arrested the accused on
19.07.2014. The muddemal property such as the clothes of the
deceased, sickle, blood sample, simple earth and earth mixed
with blood seized from the spot, the blood sample of the
deceased & the blood sample of the accused were forwarded to
Chemical Analyzer (C.A.). On conclusion of investigation, he
prepared the charge-sheet and filed it in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Shirpur. In due course, the case was
committed to Sessions Court.
3. The charge was framed vide Exh. 4. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has
examined six witnesses. The accused has not entered into defence. On
sgp 5 APEAL279.2016.doc
conclusion of the trial, the trial Court has reached to a conclusion that, though
the accused tried for offence u/s 302 of the IPC, but no case is made out u/s
302 of the IPC, however the offence u/s 304 of the IPC is proved against the
accused. Accordingly learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Being aggrieved, the appellant has
preferred this appeal.
4.
I have heard the submissions advanced at length by Mr. Prakash
Patil, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned APP for the State
and carefully perused the record & proceedings.
5. In nutshell, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that there is no cogent, convincing evidence to sustain the
conviction u/s 304 of the IPC. He has submitted that, the incident was
occurred on 11.07.2014, whereas the complaint was lodged on 13.07.2014.
Prosecution has failed to explain the delay of two days in lodging the
complaint. In this background the learned counsel argued that, the possibility
of accused being falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the
complainant after due deliberation cannot be ruled out. He has further
sgp 6 APEAL279.2016.doc
submitted that, no independent witness was examined though incident was
occurred at a place surrounded by number of houses and therefore the
accused deserves to be acquitted. By referring the injuries found on the body
of the deceased and over all facts & circumstances of the case that assault was
not premeditated, the learned counsel contended that the conviction of the
appellant u/s 304 of the IPC is not sustainable in law.
6.
On the other hand, the learned APP has supported the Judgment
& Order passed by the trial Court & submitted that the prosecution has
adduced cogent & convincing evidence to prove its case. He has submitted
that, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 & PW4, the
witnesses to incident. By referring the testimony of Dr. Ajit Patil (PW2) &
injuries found on the body of deceased, the ld. APP submitted that, it can
safely be inferred that injuries caused by the accused were caused by applying
full force. The impact of assault was so severe that left femur bone of
deceased found to be cut through and through. In this background the
learned APP submitted that the manner in which the accused has assaulted
the deceased is sufficient to reflect that he had a knowledge that by doing
such act, death is likely to cause and thereby the trial Court has rightly
sgp 7 APEAL279.2016.doc
convicted him u/s 304 of the IPC. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is
concerned, the learned APP has submitted that the delay has been fully
explained. The deceased died in the Hospital on 11.07.2014. After the post-
mortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the family of the
deceased on 12.7.2014 and thereafter the body was taken to village where
last rites was performed. Immediately on the next day, the complaint has
been lodged. He has, therefore, submitted that the delay has been properly
explained.
7. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, I have carefully
scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence on record. If we consider over
all facts of the case, then the relationship between the accused and deceased
is not disputed. So also the fact that the deceased died on account of the
injury sustained in the incident dt. 11.7.2014 is also not in dispute. The fact
that the deceased has died a homicidal death is also not in dispute. Therefore,
the limited question which falls for consideration is whether the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the homicidal death of the deceased
was caused by the appellant/accused and if so, the conviction of the appellant
u/s 304 of the IPC is sustainable.
sgp 8 APEAL279.2016.doc
8. Prosecution examined Dr. Ajit Patil (PW2), the Autopsy Surgeon,
who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He has deposed that, on
12.07.2014, dead body of Gangaram Pawara (deceased) was referred to him
for post-mortem by City Police Station, Dhule along with the copy of inquest
panchanama. He conducted the post-mortem on 12.7.2014 between 9.30 and
10.30 hours. On external examination, he noticed the following injuries on
the body of the deceased.
1. 2 minor abrasions over neck, left side 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m., each;
2. Incised wound over left mandibular region 4 x 0.2 c.m. x bone deep.
3. chop wound over left thigh, 5 c.m. above knee, 10 c.m. X 5 x 6 c.m. with
underlying bones, muscles, vessels cut through and through.
4. Left femur cut through and through, lower 1/5.
. He further deposed that, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature
and possibly caused by sharp and cutting object. He deposed that, injury
No. 3 - the chop wound over left thigh, 5 c.m. above knee, 10 c.m. X 5 x 6
c.m. with underlying bones, muscles, vessels cut through and through, is
sufficient to cause death of any person in ordinary course of nature. He
further deposed that, deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage following
chop injury. The report of post-mortem is at Exh. 18. He further opined that,
the injuries noted in his report are possible by weapon like sickle (Article
sgp 9 APEAL279.2016.doc
No.3). Suggestion given to the witness that the aforesaid injuries are possible
due to fall on hard and rough surface, the witness has denied the suggestion.
Therefore, the testimony of PW2 remained intact. In this view, I have no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to
establish that the deceased died a homicidal death and that too due to the
injuries sustained in an incident dt. 11.07.2014. The reasons & findings
recorded by the trial Court to this effect are fully in consonance with the
evidence on record.
9. Now the next question which falls for consideration is
whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
homicidal death of the deceased was caused by the appellant/accused. In
order to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of offence,
the prosecution has examined Ratilal Pawara (PW3), the witness to the
incident. No doubt, the witness is close relative of the deceased, but the PW3
is not only the relative of the deceased but he is also brother of accused. In
this view, in absence of any strong reason to falsely implicate the accused, the
testimony of PW3 cannot be disbelieved. He has deposed as per the case of
the prosecution as discussed above and further identified sickle (Article no. 3)
sgp 10 APEAL279.2016.doc
used in commission of offence by accused. The witness was cross-examined at
length by the ld. counsel for the accused. It has been brought on record that
PW3 studied upto 4th std. and is not able to read and write except to put his
signature. He admitted that, he is not able to read and write in Marathi the
language in which the complaint was recorded and he narrated the incident in
Pawara dialect. He denied the suggestion that, he and his family members
had strained relationship with accused. Thus, there is no evidence as such to
show that PW3 and other members of the family were on cross terms with
accused and they had strong reasons to falsely implicate the accused. He
denied the suggestion given in the cross-examination that, while weaving the
cot, the rope get entangled with each other and while cutting rope with the
help of sickle, his father sustained injury. In my view, only evidence to find
support to the case of the accused brought in the cross-examination is that the
accused came on the spot without any weapon and entire incident was
occurred on account of demand of money by accused to his father.
10. Thus, there is nothing brought through the cross-examination of
PW3 to discard his testimony and to show that, report (Exh. 22) was lodged
after due deliberation and that too with a view to falsely implicate the
sgp 11 APEAL279.2016.doc
accused. If we consider the cross-examination of PW3, then the version of
incident as given by the accused has not been disputed. On the contrary, the
evidence brought in the cross-examination has strengthened the case of the
prosecution that the incident was occurred on account of demand of money by
the accused. Thus, there is no reason to discard and disbelieve the testimony
of PW3. The testimony of PW3 duly corroborated by PW4.
11.
PW4-Shantiram Pawara brother of accused, the another witness
examined by the prosecution fully supported the case of the prosecution. He
entirely deposed as per case of prosecution. He deposed in the cross-
examination that, he narrated the incident in Ahirani dialect, which was
reduced into writing by the police. He denied the suggestion that, the
deceased sustained injury due to fall on the tar road. He also denied the
suggestion that, all of them assaulted the accused by means of sickle.
However, he has admitted that, the accused filed case of assault against them
and same is pending. It is further brought through the cross-examination of
PW4 that when accused reached to the spot, he was not armed with any
weapon. Thus, if we consider the over all cross-examination of the witness,
then there is nothing to discard and disbelieve the testimony of PW4, who
duly corroborated the testimony of PW3. Besides the oral testimony of PW3 &
sgp 12 APEAL279.2016.doc
PW4, there is a testimony of Dr. Ajit Patil, the Autopsy Surgeon, which duly
corroborates the testimony of PW3 & PW4, on all material facts deposed by
them as to the injury sustained by the deceased in the incident dt. 11.07.2014.
The spot panchanama (Exh.10) and the recovery of the weapon (sickle) from
the spot also corroborate the testimony of PW3 & PW4. C.A. report (Exh. 14)
establishes that, Sickle (Article No. 3), Kopari (Article No. 4), Earth (Article
No. 2), Earth collected from the spot mixed with blood (Article No.1),
Underpart (Article No. 5), Kardoda (Article No.6) of deceased were found to
be stained with human blood. Thus, the prosecution has adduced cogent &
convincing evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the
commission of offence.
12. Although there is a delay of about two days in lodging the report,
same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Delay has been sufficiently
explained by the prosecution. The fact is not in dispute that the deceased
succumbed to the injuries on 11.07.2014 at about 11:00 P.M. and the
post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 12.07.2014
in between 9:30 and 10:30 pm. From the hospital at Dhule, the dead body of
the deceased was taken to his village at Shirpur where last rites were
sgp 13 APEAL279.2016.doc
performed. Immediately on the next day, the complaint (Exh. 22) was lodged
by PW3. As per the noting made on complaint Exh. 22, the offence was
registered on 13.07.2014 at 10:15 a.m. It has been brought on record in the
cross-examination that, PW3 is educated upto 4 th std. and at the most, he can
put his signature and unable to read & write. He belongs to Adiwasi
community. He is a son of deceased and brother of accused. Therefore, there
is no scope to raise any doubt on account of delay in lodging report & to infer
that the delay was deliberate and the complaint was filed after due
deliberation. PW3 & PW4 as well as the accused are the rustic persons
coming from village background. Therefore, there is no scope to draw
inference that the complaint Exh.22 implicating the accused was filed after
deliberations made by PW3 with his family members to falsely implicate the
accused. There is nothing brought in the cross-examination of PW2 to
establish that he and his family members were carrying grudge against the
accused and they had strong reasons to falsely implicate him in the case that
too in case of murder of his own father. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept
the contention of the learned counsel that the delay has not been explained by
the prosecution and same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
sgp 14 APEAL279.2016.doc
13. So far as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel that
the prosecution has not examined the independent witness and PW3 & PW4
are closely related persons, I do not find any substance in the submission. No
doubt, incident was occurred in a place surrounded by number of houses and
no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Only for the
reason that independent person is not examined the accused cannot claim that
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt.
The testimony of the close relatives of the deceased is admissible in law. It is a
rule of caution based upon the assumption that person being interested may
make an exaggeration and to ensure the accused being convicted, such
witnesses may depose falsely against him. It is, therefore, rule of a caution
which made the court to act cautiously while dealing with the testimony of
close relatives. It is not the rule, that irrespective of the facts and
circumstances of the case the testimony of close relatives liable to be
discarded. Rule of caution at the most leads to court to act cautiously and
make close scrutiny of evidence of such witnesses and in appropriate case may
insist for corroboration from independent evidence, which may be oral or
documentary. In the instant case, PW3 & PW4 are not only the relatives of the
deceased but they are also brothers of the accused. As discussed, no evidence
sgp 15 APEAL279.2016.doc
has been brought on record against PW3 & PW4 to establish that they had
strong reasons to depose falsely against accused. Both the witnesses have
denied the suggestion that, they were on cross terms with the accused. In
absence of any evidence or circumstances brought on record to raise suspicion
as to truthfulness of testimony of PW3 & PW4, their testimony cannot be
discarded. On due consideration of their testimony in the light of the other
evidence on record, I have no hesitation to hold that they are wholly reliable
and their testimony can be safely accepted without corroboration from
independent witness.
14. On reaching to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the
complicity of the accused in commission of offence, the next question which
falls for consideration is; whether the conviction of accused u/s 304 of the IPC
is sustainable.
15. Now I proceed to appreciate the submissions that the conviction
awarded u/s 304 of the IPC is not sustainable in law and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, at the most the offence can be termed as an act of
voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon punishable u/s 324 of the IPC.
At the cost of repetition, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
sgp 16 APEAL279.2016.doc
it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the assault was premeditated.
On the contrary, the evidence on record reflects that the accused had not
carried any weapon with him. He came on the spot in a drunken condition
and demanded money from his father for consuming liquor. On refusal to pay
money, the accused got annoyed and picked up sickle lying nearby to his
father & which he was using for weaving the cot, and assaulted his father by
means of sickle over left leg and left cheek which resulted into chop injury.
Due to excessive bleeding, the deceased sustained hemorrhagic shock and
died in the hospital while undergoing the treatment. In this context, the ld.
counsel for appellant has invited my attention to the testimony of PW3 &
PW4, the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution and the testimony of
PW2 - the Autopsy Surgeon. By referring the testimony of said witnesses and
the injuries caused to the deceased, the learned counsel submitted that, by no
stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the accused had assaulted the
deceased with an intention to cause death or such bodily injuries as likely to
cause death to be punishable u/s 304 of the IPC. He has submitted that, act in
question cannot be termed as Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder to
be punishable u/s 304 of the IPC.
sgp 17 APEAL279.2016.doc
16. On the other hand, the learned APP has strenuously contended
that, the manner in which and the force with which the accused has assaulted
the deceased sufficient to draw inference that accused had a knowledge of
consequences of his act that it would likely to cause death. It is pointed out
that the injuries sustained by the deceased at the hands of the accused were so
severe that femur bone cut through and through and veins & arteries
supplying blood to heart were also cut, which resulted into extensive bleeding.
He has further submitted that, PW2 - Dr. Ajit Patil has deposed that the injury
caused to the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death of any
person. In this view, the learned APP has supported the conviction of
appellant u/s 304 of the IPC.
17. In order to appreciate the above submissions, I have closely
scrutinized the evidence on record. There is no dispute as to the fact that the
deceased was assaulted by means of sickle by accused. As per the case of the
prosecution, at the relevant date and time of the incident, the accused came in
a drunken condition in the courtyard of house of deceased. At that time the
deceased was weaving cot and for cutting the rope he was using said sickle.
The sickle was lying nearby the side of the deceased. The accused who was
already in a drunken condition went near to his father and asked him to pay
sgp 18 APEAL279.2016.doc
money to consume liquor. The deceased-father of the accused refused to pay
money and asked him to leave the place. In spite of refusal to pay and asked
to leave the place, the accused went on insisting his father to pay money to
him. After deceased refused to pay money, the accused picked up the sickle
lying nearby his father and assaulted him by means of sickle, which resulted
into said injuries.
18.
After causing the injuries, the accused ran away from the spot by
throwing the sickle at same place. Initially the injured was brought to Rural
Hospital at Shirpur. Looking to the condition of the deceased, Doctor on duty
referred him to District Hospital at Dhule. While undergoing the treatment,
the deceased succumbed to injuries and died on 11.07.2014 at about 11:00
p.m. As per PM report, the cause of death has been assigned as "Shock and
Haemorrhage following chop injury to left leg". Thus, if we go by the
prosecution case and the evidence on record, then it can be said with all
certainty, that assault was not premeditated. It is also clear that accused had
not carried with him any weapon to assault the deceased. The purpose of
accused to visit his father was to demand money for consuming liquor.
Refusal to pay money has resulted into incident of assault on the deceased and
injuries referred above cannot be termed as injuries inflicted on any vital part
sgp 19 APEAL279.2016.doc
of the body of the deceased. Therefore no motive can be attributed on the
part of the accused to assault his father and that too with intention to cause
his death. So also it can not be inferred that accused acted with such
knowledge that his act may likely to cause death of his father. Dr. Ajit Patil
(PW2) has deposed that, out of four injuries, the injury No. 3 alone can be
treated as a fatal injury and it has resulted into death of deceased. The injury
which was caused over the left leg above the knee and resulted into cutting
the veins and arteries resulted into stoppage of supply of blood to heart. Due
to extensive bleeding, the deceased went in shock. The cause of death has
been assigned as "Haemorrhagic shock". Thus, the excessive bleeding due to
said injury has resulted into death of the deceased. The injury No. 3 cannot
be termed as a injury inflicted on any vital organ of the body of the deceased.
Thus, in the light of this evidence, by no stretch of imagination it can be
inferred that the accused assaulted the deceased with such knowledge that his
act likely to cause death of the deceased and the act in question can be termed
"Culpable Homicide" not amounting to murder. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, at the most it can be said that the accused had
intended to voluntarily cause grievous hurt to deceased which is punishable
u/s 326 of the IPC.
sgp 20 APEAL279.2016.doc
19. The line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder
and grievous hurt is very thin. If death is likely to be caused, it could be
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and if injuries caused only
endanger the life it would be termed as grievous hurt and injuries said to be
grievous when it puts the life of injured in danger. The grievous hurt has been
defined u/s 320 of IPC. Section 320 of IPC reads as under:
320. Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are
designated as "grievous":--
(First) -- Emasculation.
(Secondly) -- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
(Fourthly) -- Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of
any member or joint.
(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly) -- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly) -- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the
sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in
severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits.
20. In the present case, prosecution has proved that the accused
assaulted the deceased by means of sickle which falls in the category of
instrument to be termed as 'instrument used for cutting'. It is nowhere the
case of the accused that the deceased has sustained the injuries accidentally
sgp 21 APEAL279.2016.doc
and accused had not intended to voluntarily cause such injuries. On the
contrary, the act of the accused to lift the sickle lying nearby his father and
then to assault him over the left cheek & left leg reflects that the act of
accused to assault his father can very well be termed as voluntary & causing of
grievous hurt. Due to assault, the deceased died on the same day.
21. It is evident from the testimony of Dr. Ajit Patil (PW2) and the
injuries as reflected in the post-mortem report that the injury No. 3 was dealt
with full force, resulted into chop wound of dimension 10 c.m. X 5 X 6 c.m.,
which resulted into cut of femur bone through and through as well as veins &
arteries supplying blood to heart were cut due to said injury. Therefore, the
act of accused can very well be termed as an act of voluntarily causing
grievous hurt by use of dangerous weapon like sickle which has endangered
the life of the deceased and resulted into his death. In this view, though it can
be stated that the act of the accused cannot be termed as a culpable homicide
not amounting to murder punishable u/s 304 of the IPC, but certainly the act
in question can be termed as voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of
dangerous weapon i.e. sickle used for cutting and thereby the accused has
committed offence punishable u/s 326 of the IPC.
sgp 22 APEAL279.2016.doc
22. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the act in
question can be termed as an act of voluntarily causing hurt punishable
u/s 324 of the IPC. As discussed, the injury no. 3 found on the body of the
deceased, found to be grievous hurt which has resulted into his death. It was
caused by means of sickle which is used for cutting. Therefore, by no stretch
of imagination the act in question of the accused can be termed as an act of
voluntarily causing hurt to be punishable u/s 324 of IPC.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred and relied upon
the decision of this court in the case of Dilip Ramaji Kakde vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 549. In my view the ruling cited
have no bearing upon the facts of the present case.
24. In the light of the discussion made in the foregoing paras,
although the conviction of the appellant needs to be upheld, but the appeal
deserves to be partly allowed to the extent of alteration of sentence awarded
u/s 304 of IPC to Section 326 of the IPC. I am therefore, inclined to pass the
following order.
sgp 23 APEAL279.2016.doc
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The conviction of the appellant u/s 304 of the IPC is set aside.
(iii) The appellant/accused is held guilty of offence punishable
u/s 326 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months.
(iv) The appellant be given set off u/s 428 of the IPC.
[ V. L. ACHLIYA ]
JUDGE
