Bombay High Court
Sanjay @ Dattu Suresh Akulwar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 May, 2017
Bench: N.W. Sambre
1 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574/2003
Sanjay @ Dattu s/o Suresh Akulwar,
Age about : 20 years,
R/o Ramaleshwar Ward No.5,
Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur. ..... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra,
through PSO Ramtek,
District - Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Jaltare, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Harshada Prabhu, APP for the respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- N. W. SAMBRE, J.
DATED :- 12/05/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, Shri Jaltare, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the victim in the present case namely
Ravindra Rajeshwar Akulwar has already expired and PW 1 Tara
his wife is personally present in the Court. According to him,
victim Ravindra and appellant / accused are the real cousins and
at the spur of moment, the incident had occurred because of
provocation by deceased. On record the appellant has filed
2 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
application under Sections 482, 320 of Cr.P.C. and submits that
the matter be ordered to be compounded.
2. In the aforesaid background, the Court has
proceeded to examine the matter on merit as the offence appears
to be not compoundable.
3. In Sessions Trial No.616/2000 (State Vrs. Sanjay),
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide Judgment and
order dated 12th August, 2003 convicted the respondent / accused
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R. I. for four years and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer S. I. for six months.
Hence, present appeal by the accused against
conviction.
4. The prosecution story in a nutshell as could be
considered is accused and the deceased Ravindra are the real
cousins and residing on the piece of plot which was divided by a
partition wall. The said wall either was collapsed or made to
3 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
demolish and the material thereof was sought to be used by the
accused for carrying out certain construction on his plot.
5. It is, at this moment, differences between the
accused and the deceased Ravindra cropped up which has resulted
into the accused giving stab blow on the abdomen of Ravindra, as
such crime in question.
6. After the charge sheet was filed under Section 307
of the IPC, issues were framed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nagpur and ordered conviction of the accused.
7. While trying to make out a case of acquittal or for
compounding, Shri Jaltare, learned counsel for appellant invited
the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW 1 Tara, wife of
Ravindra, the evidence of PW 3 Ravindra and the medical
evidence of PW 7 Dr. Prakash.
8. According to him, upon appreciation of the nature
of incident as taken place along with back ground thereof, the
nature of injury suffered and the fact that the victim Ravindra at
4 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
the time of incidence was under the influence of liquor, should
prompt this Court to accept the case of prosecution as shaky and
the respondent / accused is liable to be acquitted, if not let there
be order of compounding.
9. Per contra, Ms. Harshada Prabbu, learned APP tried
to justify the conviction based on the evidence available on record.
According to her, the ingredients and the necessity for invoking
provisions of Section 307 of the IPC is not whether there is an
injury, which is likely to cause death, but the mode and manner in
which the offence is committed, based on which the evidence is
required to be appreciated. She would then urge that the
cumulative effect of the evidence, as brought on record, has been
rightly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and the
conviction is ordered. According to her, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
10. Shri Pritesh V. Bansod, learned counsel for the
complainant has submitted the case of the accused for
compounding be accepted, as according to him, after the death of
Ravindra, present appellant is taking care of the complainant and
5 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
her family, being her brother-in-law. She would then submit that
let there be order of compounding.
11. In the aforesaid background, this Court has
proceeded to analyze the evidence brought on record by the
respective parties. PW 1 Tara, who is examined at Exh.23 speaks
of the happening of the alleged incident so also the relationship
between the parties. She, in her evidence, has proved the
complaint, her signature at Exh.23 and FIR at Exh.24. She has also
identified the weapon used as article 6.
12. In her cross-examination, she has in clear terms
admitted that victim Ravindra used to consume liquor regularly
and incident had occurred when Ravindra assaulted the accused.
13. From her evidence, it could be gathered that it is
Ravindra, who has started quarrel in question.
14. PW 2, Sau. Meenabai, real sister of Ravindra and
cousin sister of accused narrates about the incident of some
dispute on the issue of removal of stone by the accused and assault
6 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
by the accused with the help of knife. In her cross-examination,
she categorically stated that accused has given a knife blow. She
has admitted that her brother Ravindra was under the influence of
liquor at the relevant time and in view of property dispute,
Ravindra and accused were on inimical terms. PW 3 victim
Ravindra has supported the case of the prosecution. He speaks of
causing of stab injury by the accused and in the said scuffle, he fell
down and sustained injury.
15. The medical evidence as is brought on record,
particularly the nature of injury as is located from the evidence of
PW 6 Dr.Haridas, there is 1/2" x 1/2" slightly bleeding injury to
the victim on his abdomen and 1/2" x 1/2" superficial abrasion to
the right knee. The PW 7 Dr. Prakash from the Indira Gandhi
Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur narrates about the injury
and has stated that the nature of injury is grievous and dangerous
to life.
16. The recovery of the weapons is not in dispute.
17. In view of the aforesaid background, though the
7 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
learned counsel for the appellant has not denied the happening of
the incident, rather he has come out with a case of provocation by
victim which has prompted the accused to commit the crime in
question.
18. The analysis of the aforesaid evidence takes this
Court to the conclusion that Ravindra, the victim of the crime in
question was on inimical terms with the accused on the issue of
division of property.
19. Apart from the above, it is also brought on record
that he was under the influence of liquor and has assaulted the
accused by beginning quarrel in question. It is in response to the
same, the accused brought knife and gave stab wound.
20. The issue of stab injury on abdomen has been
stated in the evidence of PW 6 i.e. one single blow of 1/2" x 1/2",
which in my opinion, it cannot be inferred to be with an intention
to cause grievous injury to the victim. The intention to commit an
offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is not proved
from the material available. This Court takes note of size of injury,
8 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
provocation by the victim to the accused that too when the victim
was admittedly under the influence of liquor.
21. In the aforesaid background, the case of the
accused could be considered to be one, which is covered under the
provisions of Section 325 of the IPC i.e. voluntarily causing
grievous hurt.
22. In the aforesaid background, the conviction of the
present appellant, in my opinion, is required to be modified from
the offence punishable under Section 307 to Section 325 of the
IPC i.e. voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
23. It is then to be noted that the present appellant was
in custody for the period from 18/09/2000 to 28/11/2000 i.e. two
months and 10 days and thereafter, surrendered his bail bond
upon his conviction. The accused then was taken into custody on
12th August, 2003. Thereafter, released on bail by virtue of order
dated 23rd September, 2003. As a consequence thereof in the crime
in question, the appellant has undergone sentence almost for a
period of four months.
9 JUDG-APEAL-574-03.odt
24. The fact relates that the incident was of 2000 and
accused was on bail since 2003 i.e. almost for last 13 years. When
the offence took place, the age of the accused is below 20 years.
25. In the aforesaid background, in my opinion, the
appellant is entitled to be released on the undergone sentence as
his conviction having been modified and convicted under Section
325 of the IPC. The appellant to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-
to PW 1 Tara, wife of victim to be deposited in this Court within a
period of twelve weeks from today.
26. With the above observations, the appeal stands
partly allowed.
JUDGE
Choulwar
