Bombay High Court
Pundlik Namdeo Churange vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Pso Yavatmal on 20 September, 2017
Bench: R. B. Deo
apeal34.06.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 2006
Pundlik s/o Namdeo Churange,
Aged about 23 years,
Occupation: Labourar,
R/o Londari, Tq. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra,
through Shekorao Shelke,
R/o Londari, P.S. Pusad (Rural),
District Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Tushar U. Tathod, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.V. Palshikar, APP for Respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE: th
20 SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Shri Tushar Tathod, the learned counsel for the
appellant states that the appellant and the complainant
Shri Shekorao Ganpatrao Shelke has settled the inter se
differences since quite sometime. Both the appellant and the
accused reside in the same village and wish to reside peacefully
and have a healthy inter se relationship.
2] The complainant has filed on record an affidavit
dated 27.10.2016 to the effect that the complainant has no
grudge or grievance against the accused and the differences do
not exist any longer. Both the accused and the complainant are
present before the Court today. Shri Tathod, the learned counsel
for the appellant identifies the complainant who is present in
Court today.
3] The learned counsel submits that consistent with the
course/Court adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar
Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 75, the appellant
be sentenced to already undergone. Shri A.V. Palshikar, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor however, points out that the
sentence which is already undergone is hardly nine months.
4] In rebuttal, Shri Tushar Tathod, the learned counsel
for the appellant states that even otherwise the finding of the
learned Sessions Judge that an offence under section 307 of I.P.C.
is made out, is patently erroneous. He submits that even according
to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the spur of the
moment and in the heat of passion. The accused was an invite to
the house of the complainant. Some altercation took place
between the accused and the brother-in-law of the complainant.
In the altercation, the accused is alleged who have delivered a
single blow with the knife on the abdomen of the complainant.
5] The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was
prevented or interrupted by any external factor in continuing with
the assault. That there was no intent to kill is apparent from the
fact that the accused did not take the assault to the logical end.
The circumstances in which the incident happened, the fact that
only a single blow was inflicted would exclude the possibility of
intent to kill, is the submission.
6] I am inclined to agree with the submission of the
learned counsel for the accused that even if the evidence of the
prosecution is taken at face value offence under section 307 of
I.P.C. is not made out. At the most, the accused can be convicted
under section 326 of the I.P.C.
7] I, therefore, set aside the conviction under section
307 of I.P.C. and instead convict the accused for offence
punishable under section 326 of I.P.C.
8] The accused has already spent nine months in
detention. In view of the affidavit filed on record by the
complainant, I, sentence the accused to imprisonment of detention
already undergone.
9] The bail bond shall stand discharged.
10] The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
NSN
