SHANKARAN LAXMINARAYAN IYER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and conviction dated 7.1.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, convicting the accused-appellant under section 302 in Sessions Case No.1051/96 sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also urged before us by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused.

(2.) THE prosecution story stated briefly is that on 29.4.1994 at about 6.30 p.m. when the complainant and his father were present in the house, the accused came to the house and expressed his desire to talk with the father of the complainant. The complainant therefore took the accused into the house and requested him to sit on the sofa. The accused then asked for bringing water and the complainant went to bring the same. He heard shout of his father and saw the accused running away after having assaulted the father. He immediately took the father to the hospital and filed a complaint and Crime No.177/94 was registered by Dombivli police station under section 324 IPC. Statements of eye witnesses were recorded by the police and when the injured died on 4.5.94 offence was changed into section 302. On completion of investigation the accused was prosecuted under section 302 and was punished aforesaid. It is this order of punishment which is impugned in this appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as aforesaid and submitted before us.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant however submitted that even if this evidence is accepted the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Judge under section 302 of IPC is not permissible in law. According to learned counsel admittedly the injury was caused on 29th April and victim died on 4th May i.e. five days after causing of injury. Admittedly the victim was given medical aid. It is case of single injury. Excepting this complainant there is no eye witness and even if it is assumed that the injury was caused by the accused the circumstances proved by the prosecution are grossly insufficient to sustain the charge under section 302. Learned counsel drew our attention to section 302 and contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death was culpable homicide as contemplated by section 299 and was therefore murder as contemplated by section 300 of IPC. None of the ingredients either of section 299 or section 300 are proved according to learned counsel and therefore conviction as recorded by the trial Judge is liable to be set aside.