[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 March, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
HEMANT
2026:BHC-AS:12177-DB
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.03.12
17:23:06 +0300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.537 OF 2025
Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar
Age: 39 years, Residing at R. No. 05,
Domnic Demelo Chawl, behind St. Xavier
Church, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai.
Presently in Nashik Jail ... Appellant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
__________________________________________
Mr. Nitesh S. Nevshe, appointed Advocate through Legal Aid a/w.
Ms. Shweta N. Nevshe, for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP for the Respondent - State.
__________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13th FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th MARCH, 2026.
JUDGMENT:
[PER- SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]
1) Present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order
dated 19th October 2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.619 of
2018, thereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.') for committing murder of his brother Sainath
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
2) Heard Mr. Nevshe, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.
Satpute, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record.
3) The indictment against the Appellant was that, informant -
Vanita Vasant Deorukhkar used to reside at Kanjur Marg (East), Mumbai
along with her two sons, Appellant-Hemant and deceased-son-Sainath alias
Sai. Appellant used to work in a Bhajan group and Sainath used to work in
a dairy to earn livelihood. Sainath was addicted to tobacco and smoking
and he used to spit inside their house day and night. He also used to
consume Ganja. PW-1 and the Appellant could not tolerate the said
addiction of Sainath. When PW-1 used to persuade Sainath, he used to
respond in an arrogant manner and abuse her. On certain occasions,
Sainath had assaulted her when she had shouted at him on account of his
addiction. Despite repeated efforts by the Appellant to advise him, it did not
improve Sainath's conduct. As a result, frequent quarrels used to occur
between them. Owing to his vices, meager income, and unmarried status,
Sainath had suffered depression between 2012 to 2018 and he was
medically treated at Thane Mental Hospital. In the year 2013, when PW-1
had suggested him to give up the addictions, he manhandled her.
Consequently, she had filed a complaint against him.
3.1) As the prosecution case goes further, on 12th April 2018, at
about 9.00 p.m., PW-1, the Appellant and Sainath were at home. Appellant
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
was unwell due to jaundice and therefore, he had only consumed sugarcane
juice. When Sainath was asked to eat, he arrogantly replied that he would
eat later on and consume tobacco. Then Sainath was spitting inside the
room making loud noise. Consequently, the Appellant got annoyed and he
said to Sainath as, "You are creating a nuisance at the time of meals, we are
fed up with your addictions. Despite advice, you are not improving, but,
abuse and beat me and the mother. So, give up the tobacco right now".
However, Sainath angrily replied that he would not, the Appellant could do
whatever he wished. As a result, a quarrel ensued between them. During
quarrel, Sainath slapped and gave fist blows to Appellant and threatened
him to leave the house. However, PW-1 pacified Sainath and quarrel
subsided. Sainath then had his dinner at 11.00 p.m. and the three slept.
3.2) On 13/04/2018, at about 7.00 a.m.,when PW-1 and Sainath
were asleep. She suddenly heard a sound of stone falling, followed by the
cries of Sainath. Therefore, she woke up. The Appellant was standing in
front of her. Sainath was hit by a cement block on the head and mouth. He
was bleeding from mouth and was in pain. PW-1 asked the Appellant as to
why he assaulted him on which the Appellant replied that he had put an
end to the daily disputes and went away. Upon hearing shouts of PW-1, her
borther-in-law Ganesh Deorukhkar and others came there and removed
Sainath to Rajawadi hospital.
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
3.3) On information, PSI Raju Jire (PW-5) visited PW-1; recorded
her complaint (Exh.30); registered it as C.R. No.62/2018 under Section
307 of the I.P.C.; recorded the Spot Panchnama (Exh.13) and arrested the
Appellant. On the next day, Sainath succumbed to injuries. His body was
subjected to post-mortem examination. During investigation, Police
Inspector Shankar Bhore (PW-6) recorded the statements of witnesses and
forwarded the seized articles alongwith samples of blood, viscera etc. to the
FSL. Investigation transpired that, Appellant was fed up with the addictions
and constant abuse by Sainath. He was also angry as Sainath used to beat
him and PW-1 and on account of the quarrel that occurred last night. He,
therefore, killed Sainath. Accordingly, charge-sheet came to be filed.
4) The trial Court framed the charge at Exh. No.6 under Sections
307 and 302 I.P.C. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The defence of the Appellant was of total denial and false implication.
5) To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses
including spot panch, neighbour, Medical Officer and Investigation Officer.
The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence before it and after hearing
the parties, convicted and sentenced the Appellant as noted above.
6) Mr. Nevshe, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
has made two fold submissions. Firstly, he submitted that, PW-1 has not
supported the prosecution case. Whatsoever PW-1 has deposed, it was not
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
sufficient to prove that there was dispute between the Appellant and
Sainath on the count of the latter used to consume tobacco, gutkha etc. and
spit inside the house in an annoying manner and that for the same reason a
quarrel had occurred between the Appellant and Sainath in the last night.
PW-1 has not specifically deposed that the Appellant had struck Sainath on
his head with the cement block. Her evidence regarding the Appellant's
confession to her that he had assaulted Sainath, is contradictory and
therefore not reliable. The evidence of PW-3 is hearsay. It is not supported
by PW-1. In the alternative, Mr. Nevshe submitted that, in any case, the
evidence clearly indicates that the homicidal death of Sainath was caused
by the Appellant without any premeditation on account of a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without taking undue
advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. At the same time,
Appellant was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden
provocation from Sainath. Therefore, the act of causing the homicidal death
of Sainath cannot amount to murder but an offence of causing culpable
homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C.
To buttress his submissions, Mr. Nevshe has relied upon following
decisions :-
(i). Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh reported in
in (2023) 12 SCC 541
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
(ii) Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3182
(iii) Imranali Babuali Sayyed v. State Of Maharashtra
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2608
7) Mr. Satpute, the learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that
it is trite that, even if a witness has turned hostile the material evidence in
the testimony of such a witness, if found reliable cannot be ignored. Same
is the case with PW-1. Because, in her cross-examination with the aid of
Section 154 of the Evidence Act, she has conceded the prosecution case
which she had narrated in her own complaint. Her testimony coupled with
the testimonies of other witnesses and the post-mortem report establishes
that frequent quarrels used to occur between the Appellant and Sainath on
account of the latter's annoying conduct in the house. Such a quarrel had
also occurred on the previous night when Sainath had assaulted the
Appellant. As a result, Appellant intentionally killed Sainath by hitting him
on the head with the heavy cement block, to put an end to the said
disputes. The case does not fall in any of the exceptions appended to
Section 300 of I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and sentence handed over to
the Appellant is proper. To strengthen his submissions, Mr. Satpute has
relied upon the following decisions :-
(i). Mahesh Balmiki Alias Munna v. State of M.P. reported in
(2000) SCC 1 319
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
(ii) Arun Raj v. Union of India and others reported in
(2010) SCC 6 457
8) We have carefully perused the evidence on record with the able
assistance of both the counsel. The Appellant has not disputed the date,
time and place of the incident nor the injuries sustained by Sainath.
9) Dr. Waghmare (PW-4) had conducted the autopsy on the body
of Sainath on 14/04/2018. He has proved the post-mortem report
(Exh.18). In his opinion, the external and internal injuries sustained by
Sainath were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
cause of his death was the head injury. Sainath had sustained following
injuries :-
External Injuries :- (i) Contusion admeasuring 3 cm X 2 cm on
right ear pinna, (ii) Contusion admeasuring 4 cm X 2 cm on right mastoid
region, and (iii) Abrasion admeasuring 2 cm X 1 cm on right shoulder.
Internal Injuries :- There were corresponding internal injuries,
viz. hematoma was present under the scalp; fracture of high parietal bone
and fracture of base of skull; extra dural hematoma admeasuring 4 cm X 3
cm X 0.4 cm over high parietal region; diffuse sub dural hemorrhage over
cerebrum and cerebellum and diffuse subarachanoid hemorrhage over
cerebrum and cerebellum.
10) On the question of involvement of the Appellant as perpetrator,
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
PW-1 has deposed that she, Appellant and Sainath used to reside at Kanjur
Marg. The Appellant was working in a Bhajan group whereas Sainath was
not doing any work. Sainath was addicted to tobacco and gutkha and he
used to spit inside the house by chewing tobacco. On that count, there used
to be quarrels between Sainath and the Appellant. That, one day prior to
the incident, at the night time, a dispute had occurred between Sainath and
the Appellant. After the dispute was over, they all had slept. On the next
day morning, she saw that Sainath was sleeping and the Appellant had
gone to the police station. The police had visited her house and removed
Sainath to Rajawadi hospital in an unconscious state. She had visited the
police station. The police had enquired with her. She had disclosed to the
police about the dispute that had occurred between Sainath and the
Appellant one day prior to the incident. However, the police did not record
her complaint as per her narration. Thus, PW-1 had resiled from her
statement in the complaint and did not support the prosecution case on the
crucial issue. This led to questioning her by the learned APP as provided in
Section 154 of the Evidence Act, with prior approval of the trial Court.
10.1) In the cross-examination by the learned APP, PW-1 has
admitted that she and the Appellant used to give an understanding to
Sainath, not to chew tobacco and gutkha but Sainath was not listening
them. She had stated to the police that in the year 2013, she had filed a
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
complaint against Sainath. On 12/04/2018, Sainath had come home at
9.00 p.m. At that time, the Appellant was not feeling well. However,
Sainath was spitting by chewing tobacco and making noise. Therefore, the
Appellant had asked Sainath to give up the habit of tobacco. On that count,
a dispute had occurred between the Appellant and Sainath. During that
dispute, Sainath had assaulted the Appellant. Therefore, she had pacified
Sainath and the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant slept on a cot and
Sainath slept on the floor.
10.2) In further cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that, on
13/04/2018, she woke up in the morning by hearing sound of stone felling.
At that time, she felt that someone's leg had touched her feet. She then saw
that the Appellant was standing there and Sainath was crying. Sainath was
bleeding from mouth and nostrils, not able to breath, gasping and unable to
talk. The Appellant confessed to her that he had assaulted Sainath. The
Appellant then went away. She has admitted that she had called her
brother-in-law Ganesh Devrukhkar and son of her sister-in-law, Mahesh.
The two removed Sainath to the hospital.
11) The aforesaid testimony of PW-1 is in line with her complaint
(Exh.11) and thus has fully supported the prosecution case. PW-1 has
admitted that she had signed the complaint. She has also identified her
signature. PW-5 Raju Jire, PSI has deposed that, on 13/04/2018, he had
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
recorded complaint (Exh.11) of PW-1 as per her narration and accordingly,
he had registered the crime under the printed FIR (Exh.30). It bears his
signature and signature of PW-1. Its contents are correct and true. It is
evident from the record that the complaint was filed after about 4 hours of
the assault on Sainath. Said fact and conduct of PW-1 was relevant under
Sections 6 and 8 of the Evidence Act. She has admitted that she had not
complained to anybody that the police had recorded her false report. That
apart, she had no reason to file a false complaint against her own son, the
Appellant. It is trite that hostile witnesses' testimony need not be entirely
dismissed. Even if a witness turns hostile, the prosecution can still use
portions of its testimony that are supportive of the case. This ensures that
relevant evidence is not disregarded simply due to a witness's change in
stance. Therefore, the said testimony of PW-1 is safe to rely upon.
12) PW-3 Mandar Devdhar has testified that, he knew the
Appellant and his family. There were disputes between the Appellant and
Sainath. He had come to know that dispute had occurred between the
Appellant and Sainath on 12/04/2018. That, on 13/04/2018, at about 7.30
a.m., he had seen that PW-1 was crying. At that time, PW-1 told him that
the Appellant had assaulted Sainath with a paver block. This testimony of
PW-3 hardly met with any challenge in his cross-examination for the
Appellant. Said testimony appears completely natural. PW-3 has no enmity
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
with the Appellant. Thus, his testimony is dependable.
13) With the help of the testimonies of the spot panch Shekhar
Gawai (PW-2) and PW-5 Raju Jire, PSI the prosecution has proved the Spot
Panchnama. Further, it has proved that, from the spot, PW-5 had seized the
blood stained mattress (Art.A), a cement paver block broken at one corner
(Art.B), blood stained pillow (Art.C) and a Plastic String (Art.D) and the T-
Shirt (Art.E). PW-2 and PW-5 have identified the said articles.
Investigation Officer Shankar Bhore (PW-6) has deposed that
during the investigation he had recorded the supplementary statement of
PW-1 and the statement of other witnesses including Ganesh Devrukhkar.
He had obtained the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. He had forwarded the relevant blood and viscera samples to the FSL
for the purpose of chemical analysis vide letters (Exh.34 Colly). Lastly, he
had submitted the charge-sheet. The aforesaid circumstances were duly
supported with the reports of the C.A. The C.A. report (Exh.26) clearly
mentions that the human blood found on the subject cement block was of
Group "B" and it tallied with the blood of Sainath found on the seized bed-
sheet, pillow and the samples of the blood collected during the autopsy and
from the spot. This evidence clearly indicates that Sainath was hit by the
said cement block therefore it got stained with Sainath's blood.
14) The aforesaid evidence of the witnesses is corroborated with
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
the extra-judicial confession made by the Appellant before PW-1 that he had
assaulted Sainath. Since PW-1 had been mother of both brothers, it was
natural that the Appellant would make that confession before her. Secondly,
the confession was made soon after the assault on Sainath. Therefore, the
extra-judicial confession cannot be overlooked.
15) In view of the above discussion we hold that the prosecution
has established that Sainath was addicted to tobacco and gutkha; although
he was given an understanding by PW-1 and the Appellant, he was not
improving. On that count, there used to be quarrels between Sainath and
the Appellant. In the previous night Sainath had consumed tobacco and he
was spitting inside the room making an irritating noise. At that time, the
Appellant was unwell and he had told Sainath to give up that addition. On
that count a quarrel had occurred between the brothers and during that
dispute, Sainath had assaulted the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant had
assaulted Sainath on the head by means of the paver block and caused him
the fatal injuries leading to his death and immediately, he went away.
16) However, in our opinion, the act of causing the homicidal death
of Sainath will fall under Exception 1 of Section 300 of I.P.C. which provides
that, "Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of
the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the
death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
other person by mistake or accident." Considering this exception, in a
recent decision in the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh
(supra), while interpreting the provisions of Exception 1 of Section 300 of
the I.P.C., in paragraph 11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
following observations in case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra ,
reported in 1962 Supp (1) SCR 567:
"150. Is there any standard of a reasonable man for the
application of the doctrine of "grave and sudden" provocation?
No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What
a reasonable man will do in certain circumstances depends
upon the customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc.;
in short, the cultural, social and emotional background of the
society to which an accused belongs. In our vast country there
are social groups ranging from the lowest to the highest state
of civilization. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down
any standard with precision: it is for the court to decide in each
case, having regard to the relevant circumstances. It is not
necessary in this case to ascertain whether a reasonable man
placed in the position of the accused would have lost his self-
control momentarily or even temporarily when his wife
confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with another, for we are
satisfied on the evidence that the accused regained his self-
control and killed Ahuja deliberately.
151. The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be
stated thus: (1) The test of "grave and sudden" provocation is
whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the
accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self
control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under
certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to
an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental
background created by the previous act of the victim may be
taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the
subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for
committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly
traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation
and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or
otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and
calculation."
17) Further, in paragraphs 12 to 17 the Apex Court has observed
that :
"12. K.M. Nanavati (supra), has held that the mental
background created by the previous act(s) of the deceased may
be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the
subsequent act caused sudden and grave provocation for
committing the offence. There can be sustained and continuous
provocations over a period of time, albeit in such cases
Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC applies when preceding
the offence, there was a last act, word or gesture in the series
of incidents comprising of that conduct, amounting to sudden
provocation sufficient for reactive loss of self-control.
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
13. K.M. Nanavati (supra) quotes the definition of
'provocation' given by Goddard, C.J.; in R. v. Duffy, [(1949) 1
All.E.R. 932)], as :
"...some act or series of acts, done by the dead man to the
accused which would cause in any reasonable person, and
actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of
self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to
make him or her for the moment not master of his own mind...
[I]ndeed, circumstances which induce a desire for revenge are
inconsistent with provocation, since the conscious formulation
of a desire for revenge means that the person had the time to
think, to reflect, and that would negative a sudden temporary
loss of self-control which is of the essence of provocation...".
14. The question of loss of self-control by grave and sudden
provocation is a question of fact. Act of provocation and loss of
self control, must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches
great importance to two things when defence of provocation is
taken under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. First,
whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool
and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his
mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some
relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The
retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation (See the
opinion expressed by Goddar, CJ. in R v. Duffy (supra). The
first part lays emphasis on whether the accused acting as a
reasonable man had time to reflect and cool down. The
offender is presumed to possess the general power of self-
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
control of an ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the
same class of society as the accused, placed in the same
situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily lose the
power of self-control. The second part emphasises that the
offender's reaction to the provocation is to be judged on the
basis of whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about a
loss of self-control in the fact situation. Here again, the court
would have to apply the test of a reasonable person in the
circumstances.
15. While examining these questions, we should not be
short-sighted, and must take into account the whole of the
events, including the events on the day of the fatality, as these
are relevant for deciding whether the accused was acting under
the cumulative and continuing stress of provocation. Gravity of
provocation turns upon the whole of the victim's abusive
behaviour towards the accused. Gravity does not hinge upon a
single or last act of provocation deemed sufficient by itself to
trigger the punitive action. Last provocation has to be
considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words,
serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control.
The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied
when the accused's retaliation was immediately preceded and
precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would
satisfy the requirement of sudden or immediate provocation.
16. Thus, the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by
taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form
of acts, words or gestures. The final wrongdoing, triggering off
the accused's reaction, should be identified to show that there
was temporary loss of self control and the accused had acted
without planning and premeditation. This has been aptly
summarised by Ashworth [1975 Criminal LR 558-559, and
George Mousourakis's elucidation in his paper 'Cumulative
Provocation and Partial Defences in English Criminal Law'.] in
the following words:
"[T]he significance of the deceased's final act should be
considered by reference to the previous relations
between the parties, taking into account any previous
incidents which add colour to the final act. This is not to
argue that the basic distinction between sudden
provoked killings and revenge killings should be blurred,
for the lapse of time between the deceased's final act
and the accused's retaliation should continue to tell
against him. The point is that the significance of the
deceased's final act and its effect upon the accused - and
indeed the relation of the retaliation to that act - can be
neither understood nor evaluated without reference to
previous dealings between the parties."
17. Exception 1 to Section 300 recognises that when a
reasonable person is tormented continuously, he may, at one
point of time, erupt and reach a break point whereby losing
self control, going astray and committing the offence. However,
sustained provocation principle does not do away with the
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words
or gesture, which should be verifiable. Further, this defence
would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or
planning as they mirror exercise of calculation and
premeditation.
18) Now tuning to the case on hand. PW-1 has admitted that
Sainath's behaviour was unbearable. She and the Appellant were fed up
due to his vices. This was quiet natural because Sainath used to beat them
even though they used to persuade him to give up his addictions and
improve. The Spot Panchnama clearly shows that the room where PW-1 and
her two sons were residing, was small. Sainath further created hardship by
spitting tobacco inside the room and keeping it unhygienic. The family had
poor financial background. At the time of the last quarrel, Sainath had
assaulted the Appellant, though he was unwell, had not eaten and not at
fault. On the contrary, he wanted Sainath to give up his additions and
improve. In this background, we are of the view that the cumulative and
continued abusive behaviour of Sainath towards the Appellant and their
mother over a period of time coupled with the provocative assault to the
Appellant by Sainath during their last quarrel resulted in continuing the
stress by provocation, which ultimately led to the unfortunate homicidal
death of Sainath. Therefore, the present case is covered with Exception 1 of
Section 300 of I.P.C..
H. C. SHIV 201.app537.25.doc
19) In view thereof, the appropriate conviction would be under
Section 304 (Part I) of I.P.C. Consequently, the impugned conviction and
sentence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Instead, the Appellant is liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section
304 (Part I) of I.P.C. Accordingly, the Appeal succeeds partly.
19.1) Hence, the following Order :-
(i) The impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and
sentence dated 19th October, 2024 in Sessions Case No.619 of
2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City
Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, against the
Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
I.P.C., is quashed and set-aside.
(ii) Instead the Appellant - Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I)
of I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of
payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months.
(iii) The Appellant shall be entitled for set-off under Section
428 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
