Vasant Vs. The State of Maharashtra
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 632-33 of 1989
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.89 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1986)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.89 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1986)
Petitioner: Vasant
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 632-33 of 1989
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.89 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1986)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.89 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1986)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 10, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. A.K. Chitale, Senior Advocate, Dr. S.B. Masodkar and Mr. K.L. Taneja, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 304-A, 302.
Death – Intentional or accidental – Accused separated from de-ceased in grappling – Accused then running towards his Jeep – Having enmity due to parking Jeep and obstructing – After sitting in Jeep, reversing upto inter-section of road, then proceeding in great speed on wrong side of road – Incident supported by inde-pendent witness, who himself ran for cover from speeding Jeep – Held that what ever was done by accused was done intentionally and not accidentally. Hence, his conviction rightly converted from 304-A to 302.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 304-A, 302.
Death – Intentional or accidental – Accused separated from de-ceased in grappling – Accused then running towards his Jeep – Having enmity due to parking Jeep and obstructing – After sitting in Jeep, reversing upto inter-section of road, then proceeding in great speed on wrong side of road – Incident supported by inde-pendent witness, who himself ran for cover from speeding Jeep – Held that what ever was done by accused was done intentionally and not accidentally. Hence, his conviction rightly converted from 304-A to 302.
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.:
1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal Nos. 136/86 and 41/86.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 41/86 was filed by the appellant chal-lenging his conviction by the Trial Court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 136/86 was filed by the State as the appellant was acquitted for the offence punish-able under Section 302 IPC. The High Court allowed the State appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. It was the prosecution case that Shridhar, a Social Worker, was complaining against the appellant as he has parking a jeep near his house and thereby creating an obstruction to the resi-dents of that locality. That led to enmity between him and the appellant. A few days before the date of the incident, Shridhar had threatened the appellant that he would complain about his behaviour to his superior officers. On 13.7.84, at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant was seen grappling with Shridhar on the road about 400 feet away from Shivni Bus stand. This incident was witnessed by PWs 3 and 5 – Gajanan Murumkar and Shrikrishna. The appellant and Shridhar were separated by PWs 2, 3, 5 and others. Shridhar at that time told the appellant that it was open to him to put him in jail on that day as he was drunk but he would see him on the next day after coming out of the jail. The appellant thereupon went running towards the place where boring work was going on and where he had kept his Jeep bearing No. MTJ 7343. He jumped into the jeep, started it and took it in reverse upto the intersection of the road and then took it towards the deceased in high speed. PW 4 – Sultan who was walking ahead of the deceased got frightened and as a result thereof articles which he was carrying on his head fell down and he had to run for cover. The appellant proceeded ahead by taking his jeep on the wrong side of the road and then knocked down Sridhar-deceased. Sridhar fell down and was run over by the jeep. The appellant took his jeep ahead by a few feet and then brought it back on the left side of the road. It was the prosecution case that the appellant had dashed his jeep against Shridhar intentionally with a view to cause his death.
4. The Trial Court held that there was no strong motive for the appellant to murder the deceased. It believed that the appellant had gone to the extreme wrong side of the road and knocked down the deceased but in absence of any intention to kill, the Trial Court held that the death of Shridhar was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of his jeep by the appellant. The Trial Court, therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 304A of the IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
5. The High Court after reappreciating the evidence held that all the circumstances proved by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 clearly indicate that what was done by the appellant was done intentionally. The High Court took note of the fact that the place where the incident took place was a Tar Road 19 feet in width. At the time of the incident, no other pedestrian or vehi-cle was passing on that road. The High Court, therefore, took the view that there was no other reason for the appellant to take his jeep in great speed on the wrong side of the road. In his state-ment under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant denied these circumstances as false.
6. Taking all these factors into consideration, the High Court held that the appellant had intentionally dashed his jeep against the deceased and run him over with an intention to cause his death.
7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court. We find that the High Court has dealt with each and every reason given by the Trial Court and pointed out how those reasons are wrong.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out that any of the reasons given by the High Court is wrong. So far as PW 4 is concerned, the High Court has given good reasons to believe his presence at the time of incident and for accepting his evidence. He has in clear terms stated that the appellant had gone running towards the spot where the boring work was going on. The appellant sat in the jeep which was standing there and took it in reverse upto the intersection which meets the National Highway. The appellant then came in great speed with the result he got frightened and ran for cover. The appell-ant then knocked down Shridhar. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 also support this version. Once it is believed that the appellant behaved in that manner and it is also believed that there was no other reason for the appellant to go on the wrong side of the road. It has to be held that whatever the appellant had done was done intentionally and the incident did not happen accidentally.
9. In our opinion, the High Court was right in allowing the State appeal and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
10. The appellant is directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal Nos. 136/86 and 41/86.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 41/86 was filed by the appellant chal-lenging his conviction by the Trial Court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 136/86 was filed by the State as the appellant was acquitted for the offence punish-able under Section 302 IPC. The High Court allowed the State appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. It was the prosecution case that Shridhar, a Social Worker, was complaining against the appellant as he has parking a jeep near his house and thereby creating an obstruction to the resi-dents of that locality. That led to enmity between him and the appellant. A few days before the date of the incident, Shridhar had threatened the appellant that he would complain about his behaviour to his superior officers. On 13.7.84, at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant was seen grappling with Shridhar on the road about 400 feet away from Shivni Bus stand. This incident was witnessed by PWs 3 and 5 – Gajanan Murumkar and Shrikrishna. The appellant and Shridhar were separated by PWs 2, 3, 5 and others. Shridhar at that time told the appellant that it was open to him to put him in jail on that day as he was drunk but he would see him on the next day after coming out of the jail. The appellant thereupon went running towards the place where boring work was going on and where he had kept his Jeep bearing No. MTJ 7343. He jumped into the jeep, started it and took it in reverse upto the intersection of the road and then took it towards the deceased in high speed. PW 4 – Sultan who was walking ahead of the deceased got frightened and as a result thereof articles which he was carrying on his head fell down and he had to run for cover. The appellant proceeded ahead by taking his jeep on the wrong side of the road and then knocked down Sridhar-deceased. Sridhar fell down and was run over by the jeep. The appellant took his jeep ahead by a few feet and then brought it back on the left side of the road. It was the prosecution case that the appellant had dashed his jeep against Shridhar intentionally with a view to cause his death.
4. The Trial Court held that there was no strong motive for the appellant to murder the deceased. It believed that the appellant had gone to the extreme wrong side of the road and knocked down the deceased but in absence of any intention to kill, the Trial Court held that the death of Shridhar was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of his jeep by the appellant. The Trial Court, therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 304A of the IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
5. The High Court after reappreciating the evidence held that all the circumstances proved by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 clearly indicate that what was done by the appellant was done intentionally. The High Court took note of the fact that the place where the incident took place was a Tar Road 19 feet in width. At the time of the incident, no other pedestrian or vehi-cle was passing on that road. The High Court, therefore, took the view that there was no other reason for the appellant to take his jeep in great speed on the wrong side of the road. In his state-ment under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant denied these circumstances as false.
6. Taking all these factors into consideration, the High Court held that the appellant had intentionally dashed his jeep against the deceased and run him over with an intention to cause his death.
7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court. We find that the High Court has dealt with each and every reason given by the Trial Court and pointed out how those reasons are wrong.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out that any of the reasons given by the High Court is wrong. So far as PW 4 is concerned, the High Court has given good reasons to believe his presence at the time of incident and for accepting his evidence. He has in clear terms stated that the appellant had gone running towards the spot where the boring work was going on. The appellant sat in the jeep which was standing there and took it in reverse upto the intersection which meets the National Highway. The appellant then came in great speed with the result he got frightened and ran for cover. The appell-ant then knocked down Shridhar. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 also support this version. Once it is believed that the appellant behaved in that manner and it is also believed that there was no other reason for the appellant to go on the wrong side of the road. It has to be held that whatever the appellant had done was done intentionally and the incident did not happen accidentally.
9. In our opinion, the High Court was right in allowing the State appeal and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
10. The appellant is directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
