State Of Maha vs Pandit Gaikwad And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7753 Bom

Bombay High Court

State Of Maha vs Pandit Gaikwad And Ors on 20 November, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:31831-DB
                                                                      C-CriAppeal543-03



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2003

                   The State of Maharashtra                      ... Appellant
                   Through Police Station, Umri                      (Ori. Complainant)
                   Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded

                   VERSUS

              1.   Pandit s/o Laxman Gaikwad
                   Age 20 years, Occu: Labourer

              2.   Digambar s/o Laxman Gaikwad                   ... Respondents
                   Age 22 years, Occu: Agri                          (Orig. Accused)

              3.   Kishan s/o Kerba Zunjare
                   Age 20 years, Occu: Education

              4.   Ananda s/o Shankar Zunjare
                   Age 31 years, Occu: Unemployed
                   All R/o Jakbgaon Tq. Bhokar Dist. Nanded

             Mr. N. S. Takale, APP for the Appellant-State
             Ms. Sonali Veer, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondents-accused

                        CORAM                :   SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                 Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
                        RESERVED ON          :   04.11.2025
                        PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2025

             JUDGMENT (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.)

1. The prosecution has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, assailing judgment and

order dated 23.04.2003 passed by the learned Joint District Judge &

C-CriAppeal543-03

Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1995,

thereby, the respondents/accused are convicted for the offences punishable

under section 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

instead of sentencing the accused, they are released under Sections 3,4 and

6 the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond of

Rs.5,000/- each with surety, to keep peace and maintain good behaviour

for a period of three years with direction to appear and receive the

sentence as and when called for and in the meantime, maintain good

behaviour and to maintain peace. However, the respondents/accused are

acquitted for the offences punishable under section 452 read with section

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr. N. S. Tekale, learned APP for the appellant/State and

Ms. Sunita Veer, learned counsel appointed for the respondents/accused.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Maroti Laxman

Jirewar was running the Grocery shop at Jambagaon Tq. Bhokar Dist.

Nanded. Accused No.1 Pandit Laxman Gaikwad and Accused No. 2

Digambar Laxman Gaikwad are the real brothers and sons of Smt.

Renukabai. Whereas the Accused No. 3 Kishan and Accused No. 4 Ananda

are the brothers of Smt. Renukabai and maternal uncles of the Accused

Nos. 1 & 2. Shri Maroti (deceased), allegedly had illicit relations with Smt.

Renukabai for last 20 years, which Accused Nos. 1 to 4 did not like.

C-CriAppeal543-03

Therefore, they threatened Shri Maroti (deceased) to discontinue said

illicit relations but, the deceased Maroti did not pay any heed to their

threats and allegedly continued with the illicit relations.

4. On fateful night of 29.12.1995, at about 1.00 a.m., all these

accused persons visited the house of deceased Maroti and belaboured and

assaulted him with stone, kicks and fist blows, due to which the deceased

received injuries. Some villagers/neighbourers were assembled and the

injured Maroti was taken to Hospital at Umri. Statement of injured was

recorded at Exh.49 by ASI- Sk. Jamil (PW-9). On the basis of said

statement, Crime No. 169 of 1995 was registered with Police Station Umri

for the offences under sections 448, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

5. PW-9-Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and

drawn spot Panchanama Exh. 29 and seized articles Stones under Seizure

panchnama Exh. 30. However, the injured Maroti succumbed to the

injuries on 01.01.1996. Accordingly, inquest Panchanama Exh. 41 was

drawn on the dead body of deceased Maroti. The dead body of the

deceased was sent for the post-mortem at Hospital, Umri. Accused 1 to 3

came to be arrested on 02.01.1996 under arrest panchnama Exh. 32 to 34.

Since the injured died while hospitalization, the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC was added in Crime No. 169 of 1995. The Medical Officer

C-CriAppeal543-03

Dr. Satyanarayan Badrinarayan Punpale (PW-8) conducted autopsy on the

dead body and opined that death of deceased caused due to fracture of

thoracic vertebra and spinal cord injury and issued provisional postmortem

Report Exh. 44 and Postmortem Report Exh. 43. On completion of

investigation, respondents/accused are charge-sheeted for the offences

punishable under sections 302, 452 read with section 34 IPC.

6. Learned trial court framed charges Exh. 17 as against the

Respondents/ Accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 452

read with section 34 IPC. The Respondents/accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, their plea was recorded at Exh. 18 to

21 respectively.

7. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution

examined PW-1 Tukaram Rajaram Sawant (Exh.28), PW-2 Shivaji

Manikrao Sawant(Exh.31), PW 3 Bhimrao Bhagwan Dhage (Exh.35), P. W.

4 Pundlik Laxman Jirewar (Exh.36), PW-5 Nagorao Pundlik Sawant

(Exh.37), PW-6 Pandurang Vithalrao Jirewar (Exh.38), PW-7 Madhukar

Bapurao Wagh (Exh.40), PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Badrinarayan Punpale

(Exh.42), PW-9 ASI Sk. Jamil Sk. Kadar (Exh.48), PW-10 Dr. Jaipal Maroti

Chavan (Exh.53),and PW-11 Sanjay Laxmanrao Pawar(Exh.56).

8. Besides Oral evidence, the prosecution proved following

documentary evidence as under:

C-CriAppeal543-03

Sr. Documentary Evidence Exhibit No. Page No. No. 1 Spot Panchanama 29 49 to 50 2 Seizure Panchanama 30 51 to 52 3 Inquest Panchanama 41 71 to 72 4 Post-Mortem Report 43 75 to 82

Report 6 Statement of Nagorao S/o 57 93 to 94 Panditrao Savant

After the evidence is over, statements of accused recorded under

section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Exh. 18, 19, 20 and 21.

9. Defence of the respondents/accused is that they had hoisted flag

of Anna Bhau Sathe and the complainant party were claiming that place

under the flagpost. Deceased was beaten by thieves. The Respondent/

Accused have totally denied the commission offence. According to the

Accused some other persons, who attempted robbery, might have caused

homicidal death of the deceased, hence, prayed for acquittal.

10. On 23.04.2003, the learned Joint District Judge & Additional

Sessions Judge, Nanded passed the impugned judgment and order holding

that accused persons had threatened deceased Maroti and they had

intention only to beat the deceased and not to kill him. So also,

Respondents/accused persons beat the deceased by kick and fist blows

which proves that the accused neither had intention nor having knowledge

C-CriAppeal543-03

that by their act, the injured Maroti would die. So also, external injuries

were not serious. Injured Maroti had suffered injuries due to his old age

and the respondents/accused did not carry any weapon with them. The

cause of death of deceased is not a direct result of assault by the

respondents/accused persons. Therefore, the respondents/ accused had no

intention to cause homicidal death of the deceased. However, death of

deceased caused due to fracture of rib, which was ancillary effect of kick

and fist blows and deceased did not die immediately. Therefore, the

prosecution failed to prove the offence as against the respondents/ accused

under section 302 IPC but, the said act certainly falls within ambit of

Section 325 IPC and therefore, they have committed the offence

punishable under Section 325 IPC.

11. Learned APP canvassed in vehemence that the trial court failed

to consider the substantial evidence available on record which proves that

the deceased had illicit relations with the mother of accused Nos. 1 and 2

Therefore, the accused persons were having intention to grind their axe

against the deceased Maroti. Further, during assault, the injuries sustained

to the accused are proved by PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale and thus, the

injuries were sustained to the deceased due to assault on vital part of

accused persons and death of deceased caused due to fracture of thoracic

vertebra and spinal cord injury. However, the learned trial court failed to

consider substantial evidence and wrongly passed the impugned order.

C-CriAppeal543-03

12. Learned APP further canvassed that the learned trial court failed

to consider the medical evidence, oral evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-

8), postmortem report Exh. 83, which proves that there was fracture to

thoracic vertebra and injury to spinal cord of the deceased. The evidence

of the prosecution witness proves that the accused persons used stones

while assaulting the deceased. The accused persons assaulted the deceased

with kicks and fist blows, which resulted in a fracture of the thoracic

vertebra and injury to the spinal cord of the deceased, who was 60 years

old at the time of incident and as such the accused assaulted the deceased

with an intention and knowledge that, due to assault, homicidal death of

the deceased would be caused. Further, the accused persons were having

knowledge before mounting assault upon the deceased and they

delaboured the deceased by using their muscle power. Therefore, the

findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse, bad in law, hence,

prayed to quash and set aside the same.

13. It is further canvassed on behalf of the prosecution that the

learned trial court failed to consider the fact that the accused visited the

house of deceased in odd hours, and by entering in his house courtyard,

assaulted him, which proves the preparation and intention of the accused

persons to cause injuries to the deceased and, therefore, the offence

punishable under section 452 IPC is established. However, the learned

trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in prospective manner and

C-CriAppeal543-03

recorded perverse findings. It is further canvassed that, the prosecution led

sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the guilt of the

accused. However, the learned trial court failed to appreciate the same,

hence, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order and to award

appropriate sentence to the accused for the offence punishable under

section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or in the

alternative, the prosecution prayed for awarding conviction to the accused

under section 304 Part II and Section 452 read with section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents

accused supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. It is

canvassed that though the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses,

however, the prosecution failed to bring substantial evidence on record to

prove that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with an intention to

cause his homicidal death. However, evidence of the prosecution witness

proves that the accused persons were having intention to teach lesson to

the deceased to restrain him from maintaining illicit relations with Smt.

Renukabai, the mother of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sister of Accused 3 &

4. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove motive of the Respondent-

Accused to cause homicidal death of the deceased. The offence under

section 300 punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not

C-CriAppeal543-03

at all proved as against the respondents /accused. Therefore, the findings

recorded by the learned trial court are just and proper.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused further

canvassed that the prosecution examined PW-8 Medical Officer Dr.

Satyanarayan Punpale at Exh.42 who had conducted post-mortem of dead

body of Maroti Laxman Jirewar and found injuries. However, all the

injuries described in postmortem report Exh. 83 are caused due to assault

by stone, kicks and fist blows. The PW-8 Medical Officer opined that the

injuries can be caused by hard and blunt object. The intention of the

respondents/ accused to beat the injured (deceased ) was just to teach him

lesson or to restrain him from maintaining illicit relations with the mother

of Respondents/accused Nos. 1 & 2 but there was no intention to cause

homicidal death of the deceased. The learned trial court has recorded just

and proper findings, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

16. It is further canvassed on behalf of the respondents/accused that

in cross examination, PW-8 Medical Officer admitted that injuries

mentioned in Column No.17 of postmortem report are of simple nature

and the age of injuries has not been exactly opined. So also, injuries 2 to

4 in Column No. 17 of the Postmortem Report Exh. 43 are not on vital

part of the body of the deceased. However, the Medical Officer PW-8

opined that multiple fracture of the thoracic vertebra with spinal cord

C-CriAppeal543-03

injuries might have occurred due to falling of deceased on hard and blunt

object during scuffle. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove motive of

the Respondents/Accused to caused homicidal death of the deceased.

17. It is further canvassed on behalf of the Respondents/accused

that, evidence of the prosecution witness does not show that the accused

persons assaulted with any hard and blunt object on the spinal cord of the

deceased. Therefore, in absence of cogent and substantial evidence, it can

not be held that the respondents/accused committed any offence

punishable under sections 302, 304 Part II and Section 452 read with

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, it is prayed that the appeal be

dismissed.

18. Since, for the criminal appellate court dealing with criminal

appeal it is permissible and mandated by law to re-appreciate and revisit

the evidence, we would like to consider the evidence that has been led

before the learned trial court.

19. On face of record, it appears that PW-1 Tukaram Rajaram Sawant

witnessed scuffle near Maroti Jirewar's house and signed Panchanama Exh.

30 for seizure of stones by the Police and confirmed seizure of stones i.e.

Articles 1 to 3. PW-1 deposed that he did not observe any theft. In cross

examination, PW-1 admitted that he did not witness the incidents as he

was present at his house at the time of incident and his house is about 200

C-CriAppeal543-03

feet away from the house of deceased Maroti. PW-1 admitted that shop

and house of deceased Maroti are different and he does not know the

name of deceased's wife.

20. PW-2 Shivaji Manikrao Sawant appears to be the witness to

arrest panchanama and seizure of clothes of accused persons at the police

station. PW-2 admitted that there were no injuries over the person of

either of the accused. As per arrest Panchanamas Exh. 32, 33 & 34, no

bloodstains were found on clothes of the accused and no injuries were

found on the body of the accused.

21. PW-3 Bhimrao Bhagwan Dhage (Exh. 35) deposed that on

fateful night, he was in Dattamandir for Bhajan recitals and at that time he

heard shouts of scuffle from the house of Maroti Jirewar (deceased) about

"melo, melo, vachwa" (Died, Died, Save). Therefore, he visited near the

shop of deceased and saw that, the accused No. 4 Ananda, Accused No. 2

Digambar, Accused No.1 Pandit and Accused No. 3 Kishan were

belabouring the deceased Maroti. He further stated that accused persons

beat the deceased with kicks and fist blows and they were asking Maroti

to stop illicit relations with Renukabai, mother of accused Digambar and

Pandit. Accused No. 4 Ananda and accused no. 3 Kishan are brothers of

Renukabai. The accused persons were asking Maroti (deceased) to stop

illicit relations else they would beat and kill him. In cross examination

C-CriAppeal543-03

PW-3 stated that when he reached at the spot, after hearing the shouts,

Shankar, Laxman, Sambha were not present near the house of Maroti.

22. PW-4 Pundlik Laxman Jirewar deposed at Exh. 36 who appears

to be an eye witness. He claimed that he saw Accused No. 1 Pandit,

Accused No.4 Ananda, and Accused No.3 Kishan while assaulting the

deceased Maroti with kicks and fist blows and the Accused No. 2 Digambar

hit Maroti (deceased) with stone and after his intervention, the accused

person left the spot. PW-4 further deposed that the accused persons, who

are brothers and sons of Renukabai, had threatened the deceased Maroti

over his illicit relations with Renukabai and the accused asked Maroti to

discontinue with said illicit relations else they would beat him. However,

on perusal of cross examination of PW-4, there appears to be

inconsistencies about his presence and witnessing the incident, because

Maroti was being beaten when he reached, whereas, testimony of PW-5

Nagorao shows that PW-4 Pundlik said that the accused beat Maroti.

Therefore, if we consider over all evidence of PW-4 Pundlik, PW-5 Nagorao

and PW-6 Pandurang, it apparently shows that, the accused persons were

found at the spot and they assaulted the deceased Maroti and Pundlik PW-

4 was present at the time of incident. Therefore, the defence took by the

respondents/ accused in their statements recorded under section 313

Cr.P.C. that thieves assaulted the deceased Maroti does not appear to be

substantial and probable defence.

C-CriAppeal543-03

23. As per testimony of PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale at Exh. 42,

the deceased Maroti had contusions over left elbow, right knee, left upper

arm which are simple injuries, in addition to one contusion over left

temple region. PW-8 Medical Officer testified on internal examination

about noticing some bruises over inter costal muscles, thoracic and

vertebra were fractured. The cumulative effect of the injury was death.

PW-8 Medical Officer opined that the injuries on temple region can be

taken on vital part and death of deceased caused due to the thoracic

vertebrae fracture and spinal cord injuries. Accordingly, he issued

postmortem report Exh. 43.

24. The prosecution examined PW-9 Shaikh Jalil Sk. Kadar, ASI who

was attached to Police Station Umri and recorded statement of injured

Maroti Jirewar in the Government Hospital at Umri after obtaining

certificate from Dr. Chavan about consciousness of the patient, which

appears to be dying declaration of the deceased Maroti. PW-9 deposed

that Maroti had told him that, on 29.12.1995, during night hours, the

accused persons (1) Pandit, (2) Digambar, (3) Kishan and (4) Ananda,

dragged him from his shop and beat him. In cross examination, PW-9

stated that he cannot tell what was written by the Doctor i.e., "if the

patient was conscious prior to recording of statement of the patient". So

also, he has not mentioned time in Exh. 49 while putting signature by

deceased Maroti.

C-CriAppeal543-03

25. PW-10 Dr. Jaipal Maroti Chavan deposed at Exh. 53 about

recording statement of the injured by police person (PW-9) and he put

endorsement that the patients was conscious while recording his

statement. Therefore, it appears that the evidence of PW-9 Shaikh Jalil and

PW-10 Dr. Chavan is consistent to the fact that Doctor was present while

recording statement of the deceased Maroti and no contradiction is

brought on record to that effect.

26. Evidence of PW-11 API Sanjay Laxmanrao Pawar reveals that, the

doors of neighbours of the deceased were chained from outside and

Shankar, Sambha and Laxman unchained the doors. Therefore, they were

basic eyewitnesses but those persons were not examined by the

prosecution. On perusal of entire evidence, it prima facie depicts intention

and motive of the accused person to beat the deceased in order to teach

him lesson over the illicit relations with Renukabai, the mother of accused

Nos. 1 and 2 and sister of accused nos. 3 and 4. Further, all these accused

persons threatened the deceased to stop the said illicit relations with

Renukabai. However, the evidence of prosecution witnesses and evidence

of Medical Officer PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale as well as postmortem

report Exh. 43 does not suggest that, the accused persons assaulted the

deceased with deadly weapon to cause his homicidal death but it prima

facie appears to teach him lesson in order to discontinue the illicit relations

with Renukabai. Further, the injuries described in Exh. 43 postmortem

C-CriAppeal543-03

report appears to be contusions over left temple region, left elbow, right

knee, left upper arm. On internal examination, there appears linear bruises

over inter costal muscles and rib cartilage on back, thoracic spine and

vertebra at T-3, T-4 levels were fractured. PW-8 Medical Officer admitted

that injuries described in column No. 17 of postmortem report Exh 43 are

of simple nature but denied that injury No.1 was not on vital part.

Therefore, considering the postmortem report and injury certificate, it

prima facie appears that accused persons were having intention only to

beat Maroti and not to kill him.

27. Section 299 IPC defines culpable homicide, which consists three

acts viz. (a) with intention of causing death; (b) with the intention of

causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; (c) with the

knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Therefore, "intent" and

"knowledge" as the essential ingredients of section 299 IPC, postulates the

existence of a positive mental attitude and this mental condition is the

special mens rea necessary for the offence. Section 300 IPC provides

Murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention

of causing death; or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily

injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death or the person to

whom the harm is caused; or if it is done with the intention of causing

bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or if the person

C-CriAppeal543-03

committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must,

in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause

death.

28. In case of State of UP Vs. Virendra Prasad, 2004 SC 1517:

2004 Cr. LJ 1373, it has been held that under third clause of Section 300

IPC culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are

satisfied i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention

of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury;

and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death. However, in case in hand mens rea to

commit murder of the deceased is absent and assault on deceased Maroti

at the hands of respondents/accused does not appear to be intentional to

cause his homicidal death.

29. In Case of Surendar Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

(1989) 2 SCC 217, the Hon'ble Apex court summarized the principles to

invoke four exceptional requirements as follows:

(i) it was a sudden fight;

(ii) there was no premeditation;

(iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and

(iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.

C-CriAppeal543-03

The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who

offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds

caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important

is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the

offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not

have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a

sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon

which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be

entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly".

30. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 9 SCC 462] , the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that in order to hold whether an offence would fall

under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I of the Code, the courts have to be

extremely cautious in examining whether the same falls under Section 300

of the Code which states whether a culpable homicide is murder, or would

it fall under its five exceptions which lay down when culpable homicide is

not murder. In other words, Section 300 states both, what is murder and

what is not. First finds place in Section 300 in its four stated categories,

while the second finds detailed mention in the stated five exceptions to

Section 300. The legislature in its wisdom, thus, covered the entire gamut

of culpable homicide that 'amounting to murder' as well as that 'not

amounting to murder' in a composite manner in Section 300 of the Code.

Sections 302 and 304 of the Code are primarily the punitive provisions.

C-CriAppeal543-03

They declare what punishment a person would be liable to be awarded, if

he commits either of the offences.

31. In Muthu v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2007) 7 Supreme 547] , it

has been stated that in the heat of the moment people sometimes do act

which aren't premeditated. Hence, the law provides that while those who

commit acts in a fit or anger should also be punished, their punishment

should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. We are satisfied that

Muthu was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden

provocation which led him to commit the offence.

32. In case in hand it prima facie appears that the Respondents

accused beat the deceased Maroti by kicks and fist blows which is sufficient

to draw conclusion that, they were not having intention nor having

knowledge that by such act, Maroti would die. Needless to say that

external injuries as described in postmortem report Exh 43 are not severe

and considering the age of Maroti(deceased), the injuries which he

suffered, caused his death. Nonetheless, the respondents/accused did not

carry any weapon with them but they had only intention to teach lesson to

the deceased and to restrain him from maintaining illicit relations with

Smt. Renukabai. Further, the death of deceased Maroti is not a direct

reason of any assault by the accused person. Therefore, in our considered

C-CriAppeal543-03

view, assault on Maroti (deceased) was not with an intention to kill him

but the fracture of ribs could be the ancillary effect of kicks and fists blows.

33. Needless to say that in midnight of 29.12.1995, all these accused

persons belaboured Maroti (deceased) from his house and assaulted with

stone, kicks and fist blows. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to

Government Hospital at Umri and on 01.01.1996, injured Maroti

succumbed to the injuries i.e. after four days. Therefore, it is not the case

of homicidal death. However, considering the evidence of PW-8 Dr.

Satyanarayan Punpale, it certainly falls within the ambit of voluntarily

causing grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 322 IPC punishable

under section 325 of IPC.

34. The learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order

dated 23.04.2023 and held that the assault on deceased Maroti cannot be

said to be with an intention to kill him. The fracture to the rib of deceased

Maroti was the ancillary effect of kicks and fist blows and he did not die

immediately. So also, subsequent threat that they would break arms and

leg of the deceased, cannot be the cause of homicidal death as well as the

accused persons had neither intended nor they had knowledge that by

such assault Maruti (deceased) would die. Therefore, the learned trial

court acquitted the respondents/accused persons for the offence

punishable under section 302 IPC but convicted them for the offence

C-CriAppeal543-03

punishable under section 325 r/w section 34 IPC and instead of sentencing

them at once, they were released on executing bond for Rs.5000/- with

surety to keep peace and for their good behaviour for a period of three

years under the Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on

oral as well as documentary evidence, which do not appear illegal,

arbitrary and no grounds are set out to interfere with the said findings.

35. In view of the above, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed

and accordingly it is dismissed. R & P, if any, be remitted back to the trial

Court.

36. The Secretary of Legal Aid Sub Committee, shall quantify legal

Fees of the appointed counsel as per Rules and shall pay at the earliest.

 ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )                    ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE J. )


JPChavan