Bhuvana Marni
Published on: 15 October 2022 at 21:47 IST
The Bombay High Court declared a carpenter and his son guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and overturned the life sentence that had been given to them in an honour killing case.
The two only intended to “teach the victim a lesson” for maintaining their contact with the girl. The bench recorded the pair’s activities, which included approaching, attacking, and finally overpowering and hitting.
The bench ruled in the accused’s favour based on the pair’s acts of approaching, attacking, overwhelming, and hitting the woman’s 20-year-old suitor with a hammer before leaving the scene as witnesses gathered. The victim belonged to a different caste.
“It is discernible that it could not have been the intention of Appellants to kill and murder Sakharam but certainly both Appellants wanted to teach him a lesson and reprimand him for continuing with the said alliance. The injury caused to Sakharam by the blow of the hammer was however fatal leading to his death.”
The division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav partly allowed the appeal filed by the carpenter and his son. It sentenced the father to 10 years imprisonment, and the period already undergone for the brother regarding the killing in 2011. Earlier booked under Section 302 of the IPC, their sentence was reduced to Section 304(II) of the IPC for culpable homicide.The bench held the father’s occupation in his favour in its ruling, stating that it wasn’t unusual for him to carry a hammer.
Furthermore, it was clear they weren’t there to murder the young man since they attacked him first rather than killing him right away. The court determined that their actions of striking him once and then fleeing the scene did not constitute “cruel” to him.
“The act of killing Sakharam happened on the road when he was accosted by Appellants. Certainly, this cannot be a premeditated and planned act. Further because of the relationship between Sakharam and Jyostna, the Appellants were enraged with Sakharam for having continued his alliance with Jyostna and this was the very reason for confronting Sakharam.…”
“There were abuses and kick blows given to him and thereafter Appellant No. 1 (father) reached to his motorcycle took out the hammer (which is the carpenter’s principal tool) from the boot of his motorcycle and inflicted its singular blow on Sakharam’s forehead. After inflicting the singular blow, Appellants did not take any undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner but were frightened since bystanders gathered at the spot.”
The prosecution questioned ten witnesses in the case, including an eyewitness. He testified that on January 22, 2011, at around 5:30 p.m., the victim Sakharam was riding his bicycle ahead of him as he was on his way home from his regular day work. The carpenter and his son halted when they approached the Karajgaon village boundary, approached Sakharam on the road, and attacked him. They kept attacking him even after they hit him with a hammer and he collapsed to the ground.
The bench observed that the eyewitness’ description and the doctor’s evidence were consistent. The defence attorney maintained that the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing the couple’s relationship. In response, the prosecution cited the testimony of the eye witness and other prosecution witnesses who depose that the brother had in fact threatened to kill Sakharam.
Noting another incident wherein the father visited Sakhram’s house and told his family to look for another bride for their son, the court observed, “it can be evidently seen that Appellants were against their relationship and did everything possible to break the same. This clearly shows that Appellants were enraged with Sakharam as the affair was continuing.”
Citing Exception 4 to Section 300, the bench observed, “in our opinion, the act of inflicting a singular blow with the hammer on Sakharam’s forehead by Appellant No. 1 can be said to have been inflicted in a heat of passion and on the spur of the moment due to the motive, but certainly cannot be a premeditated and planned act to murder him.”
Case Title: Sachin Laxman Dandekar Versus State of Maharashtra