CASE CITATION:
2004 CrLJ 1778
STATUTES:
The Indian Penal Code 1860
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Arms Act, 1959
BENCH:
Y.K. SABHARWAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
09 March 2004
FACT:
Deceased Pandurang, while visiting the salon of Shantaram and Ramachandra at Kolhapur, became a friend of laundry shop owner Dilip Shripati Dalavi. On 2nd May 1982, Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar invited Dilip and Salon owners along with Pandurang Varambale for a dinner organized on 8th May 1982. All of them went to the appellant’s village around 5.30 pm on 8th May.
They came out of the house for the ST bus which was at 8 pm after they finished their dinners at 7.30 pm. At that time, Sambhaji Patil and an unknown person entered the house of the appellant where the deceased also followed them. The complainant Dilip also entered the house to chew betel leaves, as there was some time left before boarding the bus.
The deceased was standing and Shankar Narayan was sitting on the chair in front of him. The unknown person who was standing close to them suddenly lifted the gun, loaded it with the cartridge, pointed it towards the deceased, and then fired it.
The shot hit the deceased on the left side of his chest, who collapsed and blood started oozing. He fell down and died instantaneously. Dilip was afraid and came out of the house where everyone enquired about the sound. He told them that the unknown person had fired a gun injuring Pandurang. They all went to their friend Sadashiv and narrated the incident.
They filed a complaint in the Karvir Police Station after informing the brother in law of the deceased in Kerli. The policemen started the trail and the accused got arrested.
On interrogation, the accused expressed his willingness to show the well where the wrapped corpse of the deceased was thrown.
FACT IN ISSUE:
- Whether the unknown person intended to inflict injury by shooting the deceased?
ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER:
- However, the other two pleas raised before the trial Court i.e. applicability of Section 80 IPC or in the alternative Section 304 Part II IPC were urged.
- He further submitted that the scenario clearly rules out any culpability and the act was merely accidental.
- The accepted position being that there was no motive to kill the deceased, both the accused and the deceased were friendly, there was large number of people invited for the dinner and the invitees included the deceased, the pleas of the accused appellant, should have been accepted.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT:
- Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the two courts have analyzed the factual position in great detail and have rejected the pleas presently being urged.
- The case is one where Section 302 IPC is clearly applicable.
- The conduct of the accused after the occurrence shows the deliberateness in his action. If it was accidental as pleaded, the normal reaction after the gun shot would have been to save the deceased and not to cause disappearance of his dead body by carrying it in gunny bag and throwing it into a well.
- These factors clearly establish that the gun was fired deliberately with clear intention to kill the deceased
JUDGEMENT HELD:
The Apex Court further said that, the conclusions of the Trial Court and the High Court did not warrant any interference. For the conviction under Section 201, it has been established beyond even a shadow of a doubt that dead bodies were carried in a gunny bag.
It was discovered on the basis of the statement in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is relevant for the above said. The conviction is well merited. So far as an offense under Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act is concerned, the admitted position was that the gun belonged to the son of the appellant and that he had no license to hold the gun.
The District Magistrate, Kohlapur had accorded sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act for the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction under Section 25 (1A) is also well merited.
The court finalized the custodial sentences of 8 years which would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
CONCLUSION:
This case clearly defines the distinction between culpable homicide and general exceptions under the IPC for the given offenses. Application of the sections under the Evidence Act and the Arms Act help as guiding principles, in case of any struggle in the interpretation of the provision of the Indian Penal Code.
BY GAURAV KUMAR