Vinod S/O Bhalchand Koram vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Ramtek ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4041 Bom

Bombay High Court

Vinod S/O Bhalchand Koram vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Ramtek ... on 18 June, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:5639




              Judgment

                                                             412 apea234.23

                                            1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.234 OF 2023

              Vinod s/o Bhalchand Koram,
              a/o 30 years, occupation labour,
              r/o post : Musewadi, tahsil:Ramtek
              district Nagpur.                 ..... Appellant.

                                    :: V E R S U S ::

              The State of Maharashtra,
              through PSO PS Ramtek,
              tahsil : Ramtek, district Nagpur.     ..... Respondent.

              Shri R.R.Rajkarne, Counsel for the Appellant.
              Shri A.J.Gohokar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
              Respondent/State.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 12/06/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 18/06/2025

              JUDGMENT

1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has

challenged judgment and order dated 16.9.2022 passed

by learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur (learned Judge of

the trial court) in Sessions Case No.177/2018.

.....2/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

2. By the said judgment impugned in the appeal, the

accused is convicted for offence under Section 325 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine

Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as emerged

from police papers and recorded evidence, are as under:

Kisna Koram (the informant), has lodged FIR

alleging that Atmaraam (the deceased) was his youngest

son and was residing along with his wife and they were

doing labour work. On 5.2.2010, at about 8:00 am, he

had been to his agricultural field and returned at 5:00

pm. The wife of the deceased informed him that the

accused and his wife were quarreling and the accused was

assaulting his wife and, therefore, the deceased

.....3/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

intervened and gave the accused understanding. The

accused told him that it is their internal matter between

husband and wife and he should not intervene and,

therefore, the deceased was returning his house. At the

relevant time, the accused followed him and pushed him

due to which he fell on the ground and received injuries.

It was further alleged that the accused sat on chest,

twisted his neck, and pressed his throat. Thereafter, the

deceased was taken to the Government Hospital and

while treatment, he died on 9.2.2018. On the basis of the

said FIR, the crime was registered.

4. After registration of the crime, wheels of

investigation started rotating. The Investigating Officer

has drawn spot panchanama, seized clothes of the

deceased as well as the accused. The accused was

arrested. Blood Samples of the deceased and the accused

were seized and collected postmortem notes. All

.....4/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

incriminating articles were forwarded to the Chemical

Analyzer and after completion of the investigation,

chargesheet came to be submitted against the accused. As

the offence under section 302 of the IPC was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed

to the Sessions Court, Nagpur.

5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur famed

charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the

prosecution case, the prosecution examined in all six

witnesses, namely:

     PW                 Names of Witnesses              Exh.
     Nos.                                               Nos.




      5       Dindayal Sarote, pancha on various         34
              panchanama


                                                         .....5/-
 Judgment

                                                 412 apea234.23



     6     Tarudatta Balkrushnarao Borsare, the         45
           Investigation officer

6. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed

reliance on report Exh.23, FIR Exh.24, statement of PW2

Sunita Koram under Section 164 of the CrPC, postmortem

report Exh.29, query letter Exh.30, query report Exh.31,

spot panchanama Exh.35, seizure of clothes panchanama

of the deceased Exh.36, seizure of blood samples

panchanama Exh.38.

7. All the incriminating evidence is put to the accused

in order to obtain his explanation. The defence of the

accused is of total denial and of false implication.

8. After hearing both sides, learned Sessions Judge

held the accused guilty considering the entire nature of

sequence of events. It cannot be said that there was any

.....6/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

intention to cause death or bodily injury. Even,

knowledge could not be attributed to the accused

regarding the death of the deceased. It was not

premeditated act and, therefore, held the accused guilty

as the aforesaid.

9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said

judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the accused.

10. Heard learned counsel Shri R.R.Rajkarne for the

accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

A.J.Gohokar for the State.

11. Learned counsel for the accused placed reliance on

written submissions and submitted that even the offence

under Section 325 of the IPC is not made out. The

Sessions Court erroneously held the accused as guilty. In

fact, PW1 Kisna Koram, who is father of the deceased, is

not eyewitness. The main witnesses are not examined by

.....7/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

the prosecution. The deceased sustained injuries due to

fall from tree and due to previous dispute, the accused is

implicated in the said crime. It is further submitted that

the entire evidence on record is insufficient to connect the

accused with the alleged offence. The witnesses

examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and

no independent witnesses are examined. For all above

these grounds, the judgment impugned in the appeal

requires to be quashed and set aside.

12. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State supported the judgment impugned in the appeal

and held that PW2 Sunita Atmaram Koram is eyewitness

of the incident. Her version is not shattered during the

cross examination. The incident is proved by the

prosecution. Admittedly, the incident occurred at a spur

of moment. There was no premeditation. In a "sudden

fight" "sudden quarrel", the death of the deceased is

.....8/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

caused and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be

dismissed.

13. Having heard both sides and perused the entire

evidence on record, core question is, whether the

prosecution succeeded in establishing that the death of

the deceased is homicidal one. To support the

prosecution case, the prosecution has examined PW3

Dr.Dinesh Akarte, who has examined the deceased while

conducting the postmortem. On external examination, he

found following injuries :

i) cresentric abrasion present over right side of neck 10 x 0.1 cm in size brownish black in colour.

ii) linear abrasion present over left side of neck, measuring 1 x 0.1. cm brownish black in colour, and

iii) contusion over midline back of neck, 4x3 cm bluish in colour.

.....9/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

On internal examination, he found hematomma in

neck tissue and muscles spread in the area of 7x5 cms in

size. He also found 30 CC brownish colour fluid. He

found fracture of C3-C4 cervical vertebra with

extravasation of blood in surrounding tissue. On the basis

of the postmortem report, he opined that cause of death is

cervical spine injury. Accordingly, he prepared

postmortem notes (Exh.29).

He has also received query report and opined that

fracture of C3-C4 cervical vertebra may be possible by fall

from tree, but due to other consequential injuries are

missing, it is not possible in this case.

Thus, the evidence of PW3 Dr.Dinesh Akarte shows

that the death of the deceased is due to cervical spine

injury.

.....10/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

During cross examination, PW3 Dr.Dinesh Akarte

admitted that injuries mentioned in column No.20 i.e.

hematoma present in neck tissue and muscles spread in

the area of 7x5 cms in size are possible by fall from tree

or some height. He also admitted that if someone

throttles, a person may die immediately. He admitted

that injury mentioned in column No.22 of postmortem

report is not possible if the throat is pressed.

On the basis of the above cross examination, it was

submitted that the death of the deceased is accidental

one.

14. As the Medical Officer has specifically denied the

possibility, he deposed that there were no other

consequential injuries and, therefore, possibility of

fracture of C3 and C4 cervical vertebra is not due to fall.

.....11/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

15. Thus, the evidence of the Medical Officer

sufficiently shows that the death of the deceased is due to

sustaining injury on cervical vertebra which sufficiently

shows that it is homicidal death.

16. Besides the medical evidence, the prosecution

mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 Kisna Koram,

who is, admittedly, not eyewitness of the incident. At the

relevant time, he was in the agricultural field. He

received information from the wife of the deceased.

During cross examination, he denied that death of the

deceased is due to fall from tree. He has lodged the

report on the basis of information received by him from

his daughter-in-law. The said report is at Exh.23 and FIR

is at Exh.24.

17. PW2 Sunita Koram, the wife of the deceased, is

eyewitness of the incident. Her evidence discloses that

.....12/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

the accused is her relative and staying near to her house.

On 5.2.2018, there was quarrel between the accused and

his wife and the accused was beating his wife. At about

10:30 to 11:00 pm, noise of quarrel was audible at her

house. As the accused was assaulting his wife, her

husband went to intervene and she was witnessing the

incident from fencing of her house. Her husband has

rescued the wife of the accused and asked her to sit near

neighbouring house. The deceased was returning towards

his house. At the relevant time, the accused came from

backside, pushed him on the floor, and pressed his neck

and, thereafter, she intervened and rescued her husband.

The neighbouring persons gathered there and removed

the deceased in the hospital. After two days of the

incident, the deceased succumbed to death.

During cross examination, as to causing of injuries,

only a suggestion was given that her husband fell from

.....13/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

tree and sustained injuries to which she denied. It is also

brought on record that her house is surrounded by other

houses also.

Except this cross examination, nothing is brought

on record.

18. PW4 Sarita Koram, is also another eyewitness who

deposed that after hearing shouts of Sunita, she went

outside the house. The quarrel was going on between

Vinod and Atmaram. Suntia was requesting the accused

to leave the deceased and the accused was assaulting her.

They both rescued the deceased, but the deceased was in

unconscious condition and, thereafter, taken to the

hospital.

This eyewitness also denied that the deceased

sustained injuries due to the fall from tree.

.....14/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

19. PW5 Dindayal Sarote, is pancha on various

panchanamas including spot panchanama Exh.35, seizure

of clothes of the accused Exh.36, seizure of clothes of the

deceased Exh.37, blood samples of the accused Exh.38.

Though this witness is cross examined, nothing

incriminating is brought on record.

20. Investigating Officer PW6 Tarudatta Borsare,

carried out the investigation and narrated about the

investigation. During the investigation, it revealed to him

that the deceased intervened in the quarrel of the accused

and his wife and, therefore, he got annoyed and he

caused the death of the deceased. He also admitted that

initially, he received wrong information from one

Kashiram Koram that the deceased fell on ground and

sustained injuries.

.....15/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

21. On the basis of the above said evidence, the

prosecution claimed that the prosecution proved the case

against the accused to show that it was the accused who

caused the death of the deceased.

22. On appreciation of the evidence, there is no dispute

as to fact that the deceased and the accused are related to

each other. They are resided in the neighbourhood. On

the day of the incident, there was quarrel between the

accused and his wife and, therefore, the deceased

intervened in the said quarrel and rescued the wife of the

accused from clutches of the accused and was about to

return to his house. As the accused got annoyed, as the

deceased intervened in the said quarrel, the accused came

from backside and pushed him due to which he fell on

the ground and sustained injuries. The Chemical

Analyzer's Report shows that Exh.3 jacket of the deceased

was having blood stains. Blood Group of the accused is

.....16/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

"B". Whereas, Blood Group of the deceased is also "B".

There is no dispute as to fact that the quarrel was going

on between the husband and wife and the deceased

intervened in the said quarrel and rescued the wife of the

accused. There was no previous enmity between the

deceased and the accused. The evidence nowhere shows

that there was any premeditation by the accused.

However, it is apparent that in a "sudden quarrel",

between the deceased and the accused, on account of

intervention by the deceased in the quarrel of the accused

and his wife, the accused got annoyed, pushed him, and

caused him injuries which resulted into death and,

therefore, the present case falls under exception "sudden

fight" "sudden quarrel". The intention to cause death can

be gathered generally from a combination of a few or

several circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii)

whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was

.....17/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed

at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force

employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in

the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all

fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or

whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there

was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a

stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden

provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;

(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the

person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or

has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; and (xi)

whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.

23. By applying the above propositions and after

coming to facts of this case, there is no dispute that the

prosecution has established fact that the quarrel was

going on between the accused and his wife. As the

.....18/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

deceased intervened in the quarrel, the accused got

annoyed and by coming from backside, made the

deceased fall on the ground and the deceased sustained

injuries.

24. Thus, considering the entire sequence of events, by

no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was

any intention to cause death on bodily injury which

would cause death. Even, there is no evidence to show

that the accused was having sufficient knowledge that this

act would cause the death of the deceased.

25. Thus, there was no motive or animus against the

deceased. Even, the prosecution witnesses were not

expecting death of the deceased due to said injuries and,

therefore, the FIR is not lodged immediately.

26. Thus, the evidence on record is sufficient to show

that it was not a premeditated act, but it was an outcome

.....19/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

of a "sudden quarrel" because of the intervention of the

deceased in the quarrel between the husband and wife.

All essential elements show that the accused did not have

any previous quarrel with the deceased. Thus, there was

lack of animus. Such an act of the accused pushing or

throwing on ground is without knowledge and intention

to cause his death and, therefore, it is rightly held by

learned Judge of the trial court that the offence would

come under Section 325 of the IPC.

27. As learned Judge of the trial court has rightly

considered the entire aspect that there was no previous

enmity and there was lack of animus, the act was not

premeditated and the incident happened in a "sudden

fight" and, therefore, the case covers under exception

given under Section 300 i.e. "sudden fight" "sudden

quarrel" and, therefore, no interference is called for in the

judgment impugned in the appeal.

.....20/-

Judgment

412 apea234.23

28. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of

merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.

Appeal stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 19/06/2025 17:59:17