SHOBHANA MANJI THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the judgment just delivered by my learned brother. I fully agree with my learned brother on all points except on the finding reached by him that the appellants-accused have not committed an offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. in respect of the death of Manjula. With utmost respect I am unable to agree with my learned brother that the accused committed only the offence punishable under Part II of section 304 read with section 34 I.P.C. in causing the death of Manjula inasmuch as the doctor who performed autopsy on the dead body of Manjula opined that the injuries sustained by Manjula were likely to cause death. My learned brother determined the nature of the offence in respect of the death of Manjula only on the basis of the nature of the injury as deposed to by Dr. Kapse. In my opinion, with respect, this is not the correct approach. When it is proved that the accused intended to cause the death and to carry out the said intention caused violence to the victim and the victim, without intervention of anything, died, the offence is clearly murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. The Supreme Court in the recent decision in (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and others) A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 416 at page 421 of the report, propounded the law as follows :-

(2.) In the present case my learned brother on considering the evidence on record found that both the appellants-accused intended to cause the death of their sisters-in-law Manjula and Parul, and having made preparation for causing the death they entered into the house and caused violence to the vital part, that is, head, of Manjula, and Manjula succumbed to those injuries. It is not shown nor suggested that anything interfered between the act of the accused and the death of Manjula. Therefore, the Act of the accused in causing the grave head injuries to Manjula resulted in her death, and this was done by the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cause her death, as is evident from their letters which my learned brother has extensively considered in his judgment. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, simply because Dr. Kapse says that the injuries were likely to cause death, it cannot be held that the accused did not intentionally cause the death of Manjula.

(3.) A reference may be made to the decision in (Queen Empress v. Khandu Valad Bhavani) (1896)15 I.L.R. (Bombay Series) 194. In that case the accused struck his father-in-law three blows on the head with a stick, with the intention of killing him. He fell down senseless on the ground. The accused, thinking that he was dead, put under his head a box of fire wood and set the hut on fire, in which he was lying, with the intention of removing all evidence of the crime. In that case the accused had confessed that he had intended to cause the death of his father-in-law. The Civil Surgeon who examined the dead body gave evidence to the following effect :---