[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ramdayal Arjun Yadav vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Chandrapur Tah. ... on 12 January, 2026
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:331-DB
37-apeal-287-2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2021
Ramdayal Arjun Yadav,
aged about 50 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o Kiliyari, Tah. Churiya,
District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh),
At present R/o S.D. Mulani Company Yerur,
Tah. And District - Chandrapur.
...APPELLANT
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station - Padoli, Chandrapur,
Tah. And District - Chandrapur.
...RESPONDENT
Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, Counsel for the appellant (appointed).
Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE : 12/1/2026
JUDGMENT (PER : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) :
The appeal is directed against judgment and order
dated 7/8/2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No. 60/2018, thereby convicting
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He has been sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.500/-.
2] The case concerns death of one Asimbai, who was
found lying injured and bleeding inside a hut in Sakharwahi.
The incident occurred on 28/3/2018. One Mr. Vikas
Maraskolhe (PW1), was a driver at the construction site, where
Asimbai and her husband, i.e., the appellant, were working.
When Vikas reached the spot, he found Asimbai injured inside
the hut, and the appellant standing at doorway. Vikas, along
with appellant and one Vitthal removed Asimbai to the
Government Hospital, Chandrapur, but due to suspected brain
injury, she was later referred to hospital at Nagpur. During
ambulance journey to Nagpur, the appellant said that he
assaulted his wife in anger because she abused him while he
was eating. Before reaching Nagpur, Asimbai expired. She was
declared dead at Samudrapur Hospital. On returning back to
Chandrapur, Vikas lodged report with Police Station - Padoli,
District - Chandrapur, which was registered as Crime No.
62/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC.
3] The investigation was taken up, evidence collected
and chargesheet filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The
prosecution examined seven witnesses. The defence of the
appellant was of total denial. The trial Court, after having
considered all attending circumstances, held appellant guilty of
crime. The appellant is aggrieved by the said finding. Hence,
present appeal.
4] Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The Counsel for the appellant has not disputed
homicidal death of Asimbai. We need not, therefore, discuss
evidence of Dr. Fazla Farheen (PW4) on this point. Suffice it to
say that she has conducted postmortem and opined that cause
of death is head injury, which was antemortem.
5] PW3 (Taleshwar's) testimony, amongst others, has
been relied upon by the trial Court. He is a labour staying in a
hut adjacent to the appellant's hut. He heard a women's scream
during lunch. Accordingly, he reached the spot. He saw
deceased lying injured with a bleeding head. The appellant was
standing besides her holding a Tikas. He immediately informed
the Supervisor and PW1 (Vikas). His presence, account and
conduct remained unchallenged in cross-examination leading
the trial Court to treat him as credible and natural witness. His
immediate disclosure of crime ruled out fabrication.
6] PW1 is the witness, who accompanied the deceased
to Chandrapur Hospital, and later in the ambulance to Nagpur.
He referred to brain injury, and also about calling ambulance.
He stated that the deceased expired in the journey. She was
declared dead at Samudrapur Hospital. He came back to
Chandrapur and lodged report. He withstood cross-
examination, and accordingly, his testimony was also relied
upon by the trial Court. He also deposed that during
ambulance journey, when he enquired about fatal injury, the
appellant said that while he was taking his meal, she
(deceased) abused him and, therefore, he assaulted her with
Tikas. The Court held this confession to be true, voluntary and
reliable.
7] As such, the defence raised objection on account of
non-examination of doctor and the timing of disclosure,
however, the trial Court found the narration to be natural, and
accordingly, believed the testimony of PW1, who withstood
cross-examination.
8] The trial Court, having believed the evidence of
PW1 and PW3, expected the appellant to discharge his burden
under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
particularly because the crime was committed in the hut,
where the appellant and the deceased were staying. There was
no third person in the hut at the relevant time. The appellant
offered no explanation in the evidence or in his statement
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9] PW2 - Sanjay is a panch witness to spot, and PW5 -
Jitendra is Naib Tahsildar, who conducted Test Identification
Parade (TIP). According to us, there was no need of conducting
TIP since the identity was obvious. PW6 - Ramdas is the
Investigating Officer, who deposed about the manner in which
investigation was carried out and evidence collected. PW7 -
Uttam is attached to Dog Squad.
10] The Counsel for the appellant argued that even if
entire evidence is accepted to be true, ingredients of Section
302 of the IPC will be not attracted. He submits that the case,
at the most, will fall under Section 304 Part - II read with
Section 300 of the IPC.
11] He submits that motive behind crime is a sudden
quarrel between the two. If extrajudicial confession is to be
accepted, what transpires is that the appellant got annoyed
because of anger caused by the abuse hurled by the deceased
while appellant was taking meal. Thus, the crime is an outcome
of a quarrel and was not premeditated. He further submits that
head injury is said to be the cause of death. The weapon used
is Tikas. He has invited our attention to Chemical Analyzer's
report (Exh. 60). It shows that no blood was detected on Tikas.
In spot panchanama, however, Tikas recovered at the spot had
blood like stains on its handle. Thus, weapon is not connected
with the crime. He then submits that even if it is accepted that
Tikas had blood like stains, it would mean that blunt side of
Tikas was used to beat his wife. It shows that intention was to
not kill his wife, else he would have used other side (blade) of
Tikas. Lastly, he submits that the appellant accompanied his
wife to the hospital, which is another reason to infer that the
appellant had no intention to kill his wife.
12] In support of his argument, the Counsel for the
appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kariman Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2024)
13 SCC 136]. In the said case also, the appellant therein had
committed murder of his wife. The Supreme Court, taking note
of the aforesaid set of facts, held as under :
"18. The act of the accused is not covered by any of the
four clauses contained in Section 300 IPC which are
reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference
:
"300. Murder.-- Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act
by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or--
2ndly.-- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom
the harm is caused, or--
3rdly.-- 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--
4thly.-- If the person 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, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
19. The accused can at best be attributed with the
knowledge that the injury of the nature which he
inflicted upon Dasmet Bai (deceased) was likely to
cause death but without any intention to cause death
or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause
death. Thus, the act of the accused is covered under
Part II of Section 304 IPC which is extracted
hereinbelow for ready reference:
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.--
.....or with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
20. It may also be noted that Dr. R.K. Tripathi, Medical
Jurist (PW11) did not express opinion that the single
injury caused to the deceased was sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
21. Hence, we are of the opinion that the conviction of
the accused as recorded by the trial court and affirmed
by the High Court for offence under Section 302 IPC is
unsustainable in facts as well as in law.
22. Thus, the conviction of appellant herein for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified
and altered to that under Part II of Section 304 IPC.
The appellant is directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years for the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC."
13] As could be seen, in identical circumstances, the
Supreme Court held that the accused can be attributed with
knowledge that the injury of the nature, which he inflicted, was
likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the act of the accused
is covered under Part - II of Section 304 of the IPC.
14] In the present case as well, the cause of incident,
nature of injury and conduct of appellant, indicate that he may
have knowledge that injury on head may cause death, but his
intention was not to cause death. As stated earlier, the incident
occurred at the spur of moment. The blunt side of Tikas was
used. The appellant did not flee away from the spot, rather he
accompanied PW1 while taking the deceased to the hospital.
He confessed of beating his wife but not murder.
15] That being so, and in the light of the judgment in
Kariman's case, the act of the appellant will attract ingredients
of Part - II of Section 304 of the IPC.
16] The learned A.P.P. submits that the case, as such,
will attract ingredients of Section 302 of the IPC, nonetheless,
he submits that even if benefit is to be extended on the basis of
evidence as led before the trial Court, the appellant is guilty of
offence under Part - I of Section 304 of the IPC because the
body part chosen by the appellant, viz., head of deceased, is
sufficient to hold that the act was done with intention to cause
death.
17] We are not impressed with the aforesaid
submission. Firstly, the motive behind crime is a sudden
quarrel, in other words, the crime is not premeditated. There is
nothing on record to show that the relations between the two
were strained. No one has seen the manner in which the
appellant assaulted his wife. Further, the appellant did not flee
away from the spot to attribute intention to commit murder.
Most importantly, he accompanied PW1 to hospital while
taking his wife. Thus, post crime conduct of the appellant is
also favourable to infer that he had no intention to commit
murder. Thus, ingredients of Part - II of Section 304 of IPC will
be attracted.
18] On the point of sentence, the Counsel for the
appellant prayed for leniency. The learned A.P.P. submits that
maximum punishment should be imposed because innocent
person is killed. In our view, though appellant had no intention
to kill his wife, one cannot loose sight of the fact that precious
life is taken away because of the act of the appellant.
Accordingly, we reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment
for ten years. Rest of the order stands intact.
19] The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in
terms of above.
20] Fees of the learned Counsel appointed to represent
the appellant be quantified and paid as per Rules.
JUDGE JUDGE
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Sumit
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/01/2026 15:52:58
