Sarthak Umang
Published on: November 8, 2022 at 18:03 IST
On July 31, 2013, Mithu Pareda, a truck cleaner, had filed an appeal in contradiction of the order passed by the sessions court, convicting him for murder and sentencing him to life in prison.
Killing a sleeping person hours after picking a fight with him, will fall under the ambit of the graver offence of murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Bombay High Court (HC) has upheld the life sentence awarded to a truck cleaner. [Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda].
Thus, the conviction of a truck cleaner for murder was upheld by a divisional bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh rather than being reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The bench also upheld the life sentence that had been imposed on him.
“We find that the deceased was not assaulted in the heat of passion; that the assault took place much after the quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased;”
“..that the Appellant assaulted him when he was asleep; that there was an assault with force on the head, chest and neck of the deceased which was sufficient to cause death; and, that there was no grave and sudden provocation to justify the reduction of the offence.”
In our opinion, the facts of the case do not warrant reduction of the offence from Section 302 to 304 Part-II,” the bench held in its order passed on September 27.
As per the facts of the case, the appellant (Pareda) and the deceased (Utpal Chaudhari), both acquaintances, had been drinking liquor since the morning.
The appellant took the mobile phone of the deceased and kept it inside a box in his truck. The deceased informed his other friends about the same, and when one of the friends called on his number, the phone rang in the truck.
A quarrel ensued and the appellant claimed that the keys to the box in which the phone was kept were with the truck driver.
After a fight on the route to the driver’s residence, only the deceased and his buddy were able to return to the truck while the appellant stayed outside.
The appellant then returned with a wooden log and attacked the deceased while they were both sleeping in the back of the truck.
When his buddies arrived at the truck after hearing the commotion, they discovered the appellant attacking the deceased and bleeding profusely from his mouth, eyes, and nose.
The appellant immediately fled the spot, and hence at the most, he could be convicted for a lesser offence – culpable homicide not amounting to murder – for which the maximum punishment is ten years.
After thoroughly evaluating all of the evidence, the bench concluded that the prosecution had established its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
It was mentioned that the evidence on record directly linked the appellant to the crime.
“The motive for the offence i.e., taking of the mobile phone by the appellant and keeping it in the cabin of the truck is clearly proved through the evidence on record and the seizure panchanama shows recovery of the mobile phone from the cabin of the truck,” the bench noted.
It, therefore, upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant by a sessions court order dated July 31, 2013.
