Vitthal @ Baburao S/O. Taterao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 12967 Bom

                                                                    918.APEAL.482.2016+.doc




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2016
                                 WITH
                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1952 OF 2022
                                  IN
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2016

      VITTHAL @ BABURAO S/O. TATERAO KADAM AND ANOTHER
                           VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                          ...
Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. P.G. Borade, APP, for the Respondent - State.
                          ...

                                                 CORAM   : R.G. AVACHAT &
                                                           R.M. JOSHI, JJ

                                                 DATE    : DECEMBER 13, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.            After          hearing        learned      Advocate           for        the

Appellants and learned APP at length, we are of the

view that considering material evidence on record which

indicates         that         at    spot   of    incident      there         occurred

scuffle and even one of the accused sustained injury to

his head which is not superficial in nature. Further

the    evidence           on     record     suggests      that      the       incident

started at the instance of deceased when he approached

to the accused who were working from 11 am to 03 pm in

the field. We, therefore, find present case not covered


                                                                                  Page 1 of 3




      ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022                       ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2022 21:42:15 :::
                                                                               918.APEAL.482.2016+.doc




under       the       mischief              of    Section           300       of       IPC       and

consequential offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC cannot be said to have been proved against accused.


2.            Having regard to the evidence on record, we

are    of     the      view          that       the    offence         punishable             under

Section 304 of IPC stands proved against them. In the

result,       for      the      reasons           to     be    recorded           separately,

following order is passed:

                                            O R D E R

1. Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

2. The sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmath in his judgment and order dated 27th July, 2016 in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2014 is altered from Section 302 of IPC, 1860 to Section 304(I) of the IPC, 1860.

3. The appellants are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment already undergone. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of fine is confirmed.

4. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail, they be set free forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

918.APEAL.482.2016+.doc

5. Appellant No. 3 is already on bail. Her bail bond stands cancelled.

(R.M. JOSHI, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) Malani