Suresh Rangnath Shinde And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 1881 Bom

                                      {1}
                                                             crappln13522.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 135 OF 2022 IN
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2020


 01 Suresh Rangnath Shinde

 02 Savita Suresh Shinde                                       Applicants

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra                                      Respondent



 Mr. M. V. Narwade, advocate with Mr. V. P. Narwade, advocate for
 the applicants
 Mr. S. J. Salgare, APP for the Respondent-State.



                               CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
                                       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATE : 24th February, 2022.

PC :

1 Pending Criminal Appeal No. 51/2020, preferred

against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2020, passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case

No. 276/2015, convicting thereby both the applicants-accused for

the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous

life imprisonment and to pay fne of Rs.25,000/- each, in default,

{2} crappln13522.odt

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; so also convicting

them for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for Ten years each and to pay fne

of Rs.10000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for six months and convicting them for the offence punishable

under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

year, the applicants have preferred this application for suspension

of substantive part of the sentence and to release them on bail.

 2                The          applicants   and    the   informant          are      the

 neighbourers.          On 28.06.2015, there was a dispute between the

wife of the informant and applicant-accused no.2 on account of

minor children. On 30.06.2015 at about 6.00 a.m., the main

incident had taken place. As per the prosecution story, both the

applicants have assaulted informant P. W. 1 - Shivaji Shinde, his

mother Vatsalabai and his father deceased Dinkar. Applicant no.1

- original accused no.1 - Suresh allegedly given a blow of axe on

the head of deceased Dinkar and also caused injuries to the other

witnesses with the help of the said weapon. Applicant no. 2-

Savita had used stick in the assault.

{3} crappln13522.odt

3 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that

applicant no.2 - Savita (original accused no.2) was on bail during

trial. Learned Counsel submits that in the given set of allegations

and considering the prosecution evidence, it is clear that there

was no premeditated attack. The incident had taken place in the

hit of anger during the course of sudden quarrel. The learned

Counsel submits that no specifc role has been ascribed to

applicant no.2 - Savita so far as beating extended to deceased

Dinkar is concerned. The learned Counsel submits that

furthermore, the applicant-accused no1 - Suresh had given a

single blow of axe on the head of deceased Dinkar. The learned

Counsel submits that it can be inferred on the basis of prosecution

evidence that there was no murderous intention. Both the

applicants came out of their house due to the provocation given to

them by injured Vatsalabai i.e. mother of applicant no.1. The

learned Counsel submits that the incident had taken place on

account of a very trife issue. There are no criminal antecedents.

Both the families are residing by the side of each other. They are

peace loving persons.

4 The learned A. P. P. submits that both the families had

{4} crappln13522.odt

taken the issue of minor children to such an extent that they were

quarreling with each other from 2/3 days prior to the main

incident. The learned A. P. P. submits that both the applicants-

accused came out of their house armed with the weapons.

Applicant-accused no.1 assaulted injured Vatsalabai and also

assaulted P. W. 1 Shivaji with the help of axe. The learned A. P. P.

submits that deceased Dinkar, who was father of the informant

and husband of Vatsalabai, had come to the spot to pacify the

quarrel. Applicant no.1-accused Suresh had given a blow of axe on

the head of deceased Dinkar. Deceased Dinkar had sustained

head injury with internal complications as it was a forceful blow.

The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that forceful

blow was given with murderous intention. The learned trial Judge

has also convicted both the applicants with the aid of Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and even though injuries on the person of

P. W. 1 Shivaji & injured Vatsalabai were simple in nature, however,

considering the intention and the part of the body chosen for

assault, convicted both the applicants-accused for the offence

punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. The applicant-accused no.1 - Suresh was not on bail

during the trial. The learned A. P. P. submits that if the applicants

are released on bail, there is a possibility of further quarrel

{5} crappln13522.odt

between the two families.

5 We have carefully gone through the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and the observations made by the learned

Judge of the trial Court P. W. 1 - Shivaji has deposed that on

26.06.2015 at about 4 p.m,, there was dispute between his wife

and applicant no.2 on account of minor children. The matter was

compromised immediately. On 29.06.2015 at 6 a.m., applicant-

accused no.2 and her daughter Sonam assaulted his wife who was

passing through the house of the applicant, however, there was no

issue out of it.

6 So far as the main incident dated 30.06.2015 at about

6.00 a.m. is concerned, it appears that injured Vatsalabai was

going to answer nature's call and while she was passing through

the road in front of the house of the accused, she heard abuses

from the house of the applicants. Thus, injured Vatsalabai asked

accused as to why they are hurling abuses from the house and to

come out of the house. It appears that in consequence of such

sort of provocation, both accused have come out of their house.

At that time, applicant accused no.1- Shivaji was holding axe in his

hand and applicant accused no.2 - Savita was holding stick in her

{6} crappln13522.odt

hand. Then quarrel took place between both the families. Though

mother of informant i.e. Vatsalabai was injured in consequence of

the said quarrel, however, the prosecution has not examined her

for the reason best known to it. Thereafter. P. W. 1 Shivaji and

his father deceased Dinkar immediately rushed to the spot of the

incident. Applicant accused no.1 assaulted deceased Dinkar on

his head by the axe. It is not disputed that there was a single blow

of axe on the head of deceased Dinkar. It appears that in the hit of

anger and passion at sudden quarrel, the incident had taken place.

Further, the incident had taken place without any

pre-intimidation. Had there been no provocation from injured

Vatsalabai, the applicants-accused nos.1 and 2 would not have

come out of their house. Both the families are residing near each

other and they are neighbourers. There are no criminal

antecedents. They are poor villagers. The applicant-accused no.2

was on bail during the course of the trial. Even if the applicant

no.1 - Shivaji was not on bail during trial, however, considering the

manner in which the incident had taken place and since applicant-

accused no.1 has given a single blow of axe on the head of

deceased Dinkar, we are inclined to release both the applicants on

bail.

                                        {7}
                                                                crappln13522.odt

 7                Hence, the following order:



 (i)              Criminal Application is hereby allowed.



 (ii)             Pending Criminal Appeal, substantive part of the

sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ahmednagar, vide judgment and order dated 07.08.2020 in

Sessions Case No. 276/2015, convicting both the applicants for the

offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous life

imprisonment and to pay fne of Rs.25,000/- each, in default, to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; so also convicting

them for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for Ten years each and to pay fne

of Rs.10000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for six months as also convicting them for the offence punishable

under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

year, is hereby suspended and till then applicant no.1 - Shivaji

Dinkar Shinde and applicant no.2 - Savita Savita Shinde be

released on bail on executing a P. R. bond of Rs.20,000/-

{8} crappln13522.odt

(Rs. Twenty thousand) each with one surety each for the like

amount.

8 Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

  (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)                         (V.K.JADHAV)
      JUDGE                                        JUDGE

 adb