2005 (4) TMI 637 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court modifies judgments in fatal assault case, alters convictions & sentences,

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's judgment in a case involving fatal assaults. Appellant No. 2 was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and ... - Issues Involved:1. Charges against the accused under various sections of IPC and Arms Act.2. Conviction and sentencing by the Additional Sessions Judge.3. Acquittal and re-conviction by the High Court.4. Prosecution's narrative of events.5. Injuries sustained by the accused.6. Police investigation and first information report.7. Plea of private defense by the accused.8. High Court's view on private defense.9. Analysis of the evidence and scene of the offense.10. Injuries on the accused and their implications.11. Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.Detailed Analysis:1. Charges against the accused under various sections of IPC and Arms Act:Four persons, including the two appellants, faced charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, and Section 326 IPC, and under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 30 of the Arms Act for the fatal assault on Bajirao and Krishna on 18.8.1984 in Walkewadi.2. Conviction and sentencing by the Additional Sessions Judge:The Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were alternatively convicted under Section 302 IPC individually. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were also convicted under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 30 of the Arms Act, respectively. A4 was convicted under Section 324 IPC. All were sentenced to life imprisonment.3. Acquittal and re-conviction by the High Court:The High Court acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offenses under Section 302 read with Section 34. However, appellant No. 2 (A-3) was convicted under Section 302 IPC, and appellant No. 1 (A-1) under Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The conviction of accused No. 1 under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act was maintained. The fourth accused's conviction under Section 324 was upheld.4. Prosecution's narrative of events:The deceased and the accused belonged to nearby villages. There was a quarrel over grazing cattle on the night of 18th/19th August 1984. The next day, the deceased and their family, armed with axes and sticks, went to Walkewadi for weeding operations. They were attacked by the accused, who were armed with guns, axes, and sticks. Accused No. 1 fired a gun in the air, and accused No. 3 inflicted fatal injuries on Bajirao with an axe. Accused No. 1 then attacked Krishna with an axe, resulting in his death the next day.5. Injuries sustained by the accused:Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3, along with four others, sustained injuries during the incident. The injuries included incised wounds, contusions, and abrasions.6. Police investigation and first information report:PW12, a Head Constable, recorded the statement of PW10 at the hospital, which formed the basis of the first information report. The case was transferred to Kodoli police station. PW17, the Sub-Inspector, continued the investigation, seizing weapons and recording witness statements. A counter-complaint was lodged by the second accused, alleging assault by the deceased and their associates.7. Plea of private defense by the accused:During examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed private defense, stating that the deceased and their associates attacked them first, and they acted to protect themselves. They denied the presence of lady witnesses at the scene.8. High Court's view on private defense:The High Court accepted the plea of private defense, concluding that the deceased and their associates were the aggressors. However, it found that accused No. 3 (second appellant) exceeded the right of private defense by inflicting more harm than necessary.9. Analysis of the evidence and scene of the offense:The High Court's view on private defense was not supported by the evidence. The incident occurred in a public street, not within the premises of the accused. The trial court's detailed analysis and findings regarding the scene of the offense were not contradicted by the High Court.10. Injuries on the accused and their implications:The injuries on the accused were not explained by the prosecution. The incident involved a sudden quarrel and free fight between the parties. The attack by the appellants was not premeditated, and both parties inflicted injuries on each other. The incident was of short duration, and the accused fled the scene immediately after the fight.11. Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC:The court considered whether the appellants acted in a cruel or unusual manner. It concluded that accused No. 3 (second appellant) did not act in a cruel manner, despite causing severe injuries. Accused No. 1 (first appellant) was found guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC, as he acted with knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death but without the intention to cause death.Conclusion:The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court. Appellant No. 2 (A-3) was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Appellant No. 1 (A-1) was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to five years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The appeal was partly allowed.