RAMANBHAI PUJABHAI VAGHRI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is sentenced inter alia to life imprisonment on his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention) of Atrocities Act ('the Atrocities Act' for short) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, by the learned Presiding Officer and Fast Track Court No. 13 at Vadodara in Atrocity Case No. 10 of 2006 by its judgment and order dated 14th November, 2006. The appellant is, therefore, before this Court against the said judgment and order.

(2.) AT the outset, we may note that the learned Counsel for the appellant did not argue the case on the guilt of the accused and the only contention was that there was no intention or knowledge with the appellant to kill the deceased and that the offence had occurred at the spur of the moment. There was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased and unfortunately the deceased lost his life when the appellant gave one fatal blow of axe, as opined by the doctor, on the head of the deceased. He, therefore, urged that at the most the appellant could have been punished for the offence under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) VEHEMENTLY opposing the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned APP, Shri. Shah, would submit that this is not a case, which will fall in one of the exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as on a very trivial issue of 'Bidi' (local cigarette), which was demanded by the deceased, the appellant had deprived the deceased of his life. It was submitted that the after heated exchange of altercation with the deceased, in fact, the appellant formed the intention to kill him by fetching the axe from his house, which was on the other side of the road and in fact he brought the axe and selected the head of the deceased; a vital part of the body and inflicted fatal blow. It was submitted that the appellant had time to cool down, while on the passage to his residence. However, he did not, and therefore, in his submission the benefit of exception, as urged by the appellant should not be granted.