A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court recently set aside the judgment of Life Imprisonment awarded to a father and brother of a young girl who killed her lover when they had gone to teach him a lesson. The High Court found it to be a case under section 304 Part-II and not 302 IPC since intention and motive were not present in the case.

Justice AS Gadkari and Milind N. Jadhav while setting aside the fuilt and imprisonment of both of them held that "The act of killing Sakharam happened on the road when he was accosted by Appellants. Certainly this cannot be a premeditated and planned act. Further because of the relationship between Sakharam and Jyostna Appellants were enraged with Sakharam for having continued his alliance with Jyostna and this was the very reason for confronting Sakharam. The weapon used by Appellant was the hammer which was not carried in the first instance by Appellant No. 1 before assaulting Sakharam. It has come in evidence that after the confrontation with Sakharam, Appellant No. 2 overpowered and hled him, there were abuses and kick blows given to him and thereafter Appellant No. 1 reached to his motorcycle took out the hammer (which is the carpenter’s principal tool) from the boot of his motorcycle and inflicted its singular blow on Sakharam’s forehead. After inflicting the singular blow, Appellants did not take any undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner but were frightened since bystanders gathered at the spot. Hence they left the spot on their motorcycle. Further at the behest and instance of Appellant No.1, the weapon (hammer) and the motorcycle was recovered and seized by the IO. Hence it is discernible that it could not have been the intention of Appellants to kill and murder Sakharam but certainly both Appellants wanted to teach him a lesson and reprimand him for continuing with the said alliance. The injury caused to Sakharam by blow of hammer was however fatal leading to his death."

Observing the above, the court found it a case good enough for the offence committed under section 304 Part-II IPC while holding that the " act of the Appellants does not travel beyond the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Act of Appellants due to the motive proved by the prosecution was an act committed in the heat of passion and on the sudden spur of moment whereby the singular blow of hammer was inflicted by Appellant No. 1 on Sakharam’s forehead."

The concision of both of them was converted from life imprisonment to 10 years RI under section 304 Part-II. The High Court further observed that the both of them were arrested on 22.01.2011, thus they have undergone the sentence and an order for immediate release was passed.

Case Details:-

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1032 OF 2015
Sachin Laxman Dandekar       Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra,