NARSINH ARJUN JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.345 of 2004 dated 11-05-2005. The accused is held guilty for the offence of murder and is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case in a nutshell, is as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant opened his submissions with a specific stand that the appellant/accused is not challenging the actual assault made by the accused and the deceased died due to stab injuries which were inflicted by the accused to the deceased on the date of the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused since his arrest on 12-01-2004 is in the prison and has undergone seven and half years of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant confined his submissions to only one aspect i.e. the case of the prosecution, even if as it is taken, does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code i.e. murder, but it falls under the exceptions covered under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. While elaborating this submission, learned counsel for the appellant wants us to take into consideration number of factors i.e. the cause of the quarrel was trivial; social and economical background of the accused; absence of enmity and sudden provocation etc. He drew our attention to the evidence of eye witnesses Pappu Ramsurat Rajbhar (P.W.I) and Shantidevi Rammurat Rajbhar (P.W.3). Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both these witnesses have deposed that there was an incident of over flowing and wastage of water in their locality and accused was abusing the deceased for the said reason. As per the FIR (Exh.8) dated 12-01-2004, the deceased tendered apology to the accused. He pointed out that deceased challenged the accused that 'he should come out' and therefore, accused came out of the house armed with kitchen knife. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the accused no doubt, became angry because of this quarrel between him and deceased, however, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of any previous enmity between them. He pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the accused has planned or it was a premeditated attack on the deceased. He relied on Exception (1) and (4) to Section 300 of Indian'Penal Code. He submitted that considering the evidence of the prosecution, benefit of the exceptions (1) and (4) is required to be given to the accused. The present case squarely falls under these exceptions. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of K.M. Nanavati V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR(SC) 605, on the point of grave and sudden provocation laid down by the Apex Court.