Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra

Judgment

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.95 of the Bombay High Court in Cd.A. Nu. 232/93 with C.:rl. A. No. 449 of l993. S.K. Pasi, Anand Singh Berwal and Sunil Kumar Jain for the Appel- !ant. V.ukesh Oiri, '\. V Dc·~npande and Pranlit Saxena for th..: Respondent The Judgment of the Court was deliwrcd by RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appdlant on being charged by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana of having caused grievous injuries to one Saoji G amaji J adhav (the deceased) with J ambiya (knife) intentionally and knowingly that they would result in his death and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'J. The appellant MASCMSHA HASANASHA MCSALMANv. STATE [RAJENDRA BABC, J.]

1157 stood convicted of the offt:nce punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC A and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. He was further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and tu pay fine of Rs.1,(,'00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Both the State and the appellant filed separate appeals to the High Court. B The High Court, on re-examination of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted the appellant for the offt:nce punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. C Both the sentences are stated to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the appellant stood dismissed.

Hence this appeal against the common order made by the High Court in the said two appeals. The prosecution case as unfolded by the witnesses is that between 7 D and 8 p.m, on 25.8.92 Saoji Gamaji Jadhav who belongs to the scheduled caste was done away tu death. It is stated that the appellant and the deceased are residi:;nts of Nandra Koli village situate 7 kilomt:trc:s from Buldana. On the fateful day the deceased returned to the house at dusk and after some time left the house informing his wife that he would be going out for some tnne and would n:turn soon thereafter. After about half E an hour, the deceased left his home, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and enquired from Deubai (PW-4), wife of deceased Saoji Gamaji Jadhav. She found that he was having a Jambiya. On coming to know from her that her husband had gone out of the house, the appellant started running through the lane.

As the appellant was seen by Deubai with p the Jambiya, she got suspicious and followed him and near the hospital of Dr. Kalwaghe, she saw the appellant stabbing the deceased. She stated that the appellant after giving two or three blows with the Jambiya and deceased fell on the ground ran away. When he left the place, she found that the deceased was having bleeding injuries and she tried to tie up a cloth around the wound but in the: meanwhile he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter G she with the help of the police patil went to the Police Station, Buldana and lodged a complaint when the PSI, Shri Oval visited the spot and after recording her complaint and registering a case conducted inquest. When the appellant was in the custody, he produced Jambiya. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was laid for the offences stated earlier H (2()()3] 1 S.C.R. A before the Jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the same to the Court of Sessions.

On charges being framed, the 11ppellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied havina caused any injuries to the deceased or committed murder. In the course of evidence, the Defence SUffiCSted to the prosecution that tine deceased was under the influence of alcohol cmd he b.imsc:lf had a <Wr...ger; that a scuffle too!t place wlnen he attec!ted the B 11ppellimt, as a result of which he died out of injuries ~used by b.imsc:lf; that the appellant hlld not caused any injury and thllt he tried to save himself. There \VllS no dispute thllt the d:cee.scd met with homicidal dCllth C cmd this fact is amply established by the medical evidence on record. There were llS many 115 10 injuries on mm as disclosed by Dr. Umesh Nawade (PW-3), who conducted tine postmortem enmin11tion. He found that injuries Nos. 4 to 10 \·1ere only shin deep or abrasions \;bereas injuries nos. 1, 2 end 3 were of m:rious nature. They are as follows : D "

1Incised wound, left infra-clavicular region in middle of size 6cm x 2.1/2 cm x 4.1/2 cm. Edges g11ping blood oozina ood blood clots seen.

2Incised gaping wound, left infra-axillary resion in 4th ICS 1 cm x 1 cm shin deep, blood clots seen. E 3. Incised gapllia wound, left posterior axillary line 4cm x lcm x 2cm deep. Reddish blz.c!t colour.

4Abrasion left elbow size 3cm x 2cm.

5C.L.W. over left ulnear head lcm x lcm shin deep.

6Abrasion just below injury No. 5, lcm x lcm.

7Abrasion left posterior ilco crest lcm x lcm.

8Abrasion left zngle of lower lip lcm x lcm.

9Abrasion right orbit out region lcm x lcm.

10AbrllSion right forehead lcm x lcm." He also stated that there is a fracture of tine second rib on the left . side in the middle, pleura • incised 5cm x lcm; that injury no. 1 was MASUMSHAHASANASHAMUSALMANv.srATEfRAJENDRABABU,J.)1159 grievous injury and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of A nature. He further stated that injury Nos. 2 and 3 could be caused by th: smne ~po:l and he was definite that injury no. 1 could not be caused due to foll o:i cun'i:d mid pointed stone. He, however, i:.dmitted thet injury noo. 2 ud 3 were s!:in deep not affecting any bone and could be caused in the course of a scuffle l!Dd injury no.1 cou!d not have been <Zused o:i the perso:i ho!di!:J dt:z;:r and sitting on the chest of the victim wbo cauzbt B ho!d th: b:nds with d~r.

The tricl court llcccpted the evidence of Deubm (PW-4) and Manoj (PW-5). ;~:eaoj corroborated the evidence tendered by Deubai to the exteitt of .hnvin3 seen the appellut having a Jambiya in his hand when C Deubai (PW4) WllS following him and that he found something very suspicious so he followed both of them. That is how he witnessed the scuffle and the injuri:s ceU!ICd by the appellut to the deceased. Deubai lldmitted in the course of her cross-CXllllli.ru!tion that scuflle too!t place between the llppellant i:nd her hl!Sb1111d l!Dd her husbl!Dd fell on the ground; that for D coiWderi:.bb time, the scuffie went on; that while on some occesiom the app:lknt \?llS on the r;round, on some other ocaisions her husbnnd wi:.s on the around; thi:.t the tippellant and the decei:.sed were overpowering ~ch other.

PW-5 also stilted that he saw that in front of the hospital of Dr. !Cclwllehe the d~d coming 1111d the appellant was followin3 him l"lith di:::;cr and geve b!o-..15 of d~er on the person of the deceased. The tricl E court found from these circumstances that the appellDnt lu!d no intention to !tlll the dtce11Ud ood that after givin3 one blow, other injuries hi:d ~n aimed dwe to scuffle. This was amply supported by the evidence of the Med4:cl Officer tlw injuries Nos. 2 and 4 to 10 could be cnmcd in the scuffle, or injuries oilier than injury no. 1 cou!d be caused due to obstrue- · F tion by the dcceesed. Therefore, it could not be inferred tlu!t the appellllnt intended to inflict more injuries than injury no. I. If this aspect is borne in mind, it \"1ou!d be clCM that the appellant had given only one blow with the Jambiyfl resmtillg in his dtath and, therefore, the tricl court found thtt it would not b: proper to COllvict the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

The mgem.ent relating to privi:te defence was straightaway rejected for there G were mo injuries on the person of the appellant and the attacl:t had been mi:.de by the appellant himself. The trial court discard::d the evidence rektillg to discovery of the weapon and jacl:tet for the reasons set forth in the order. The tricl court also collvicted the appellant for the offence llfisina under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act only on the besis that there was H [20C<J) l S.C.R. no controversy that the victim belonged to the schedult:d caste and convicted him. On appeal by the State, the High Court is of the view that the present case is not a case of single injury and there was direct evidenct of PWs-4 and 5 in respect of blows given by the appellant to the deceased and the mere opinion of the doctor that the injuries ~os. 2 to 10 could be caused during scuffle would not rule out the possibility of causing incised injuries.

On that basis, the High Court was of the opinion that there was an intention to kill the deceased and did not agree with the view of the trial court that though the appellant had some grudge against the deceased, he did not intend to kill him but inflicted only a singlt: injury and the other injuries were caused as a result of scuffle that followed. The findings of the High Court are under challenge bt:fon: us. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vit:w taken by the trial court is justified and should be accepted and there was no basis for the High Court to rule out the sarnt:. Further, he pleaded that no cast: was established for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.

The lt:arned counsel for the State, however, supported the view taken by the High Court. lt is in evidence of Deubai (PW-4) that when she followed the appellant, she saw that the appellant went from behind of her husband and stabbed him with dagger at left side shouldlCr and th.:n:aftcr gave b1ows of daggt:r to the decea.,t:d. If she had been following the appellant, she could not have seen him giving a blow to the deceased from the: bac!~. Only when the scuffle started taking place, injuries could have bc.:n inflic~ed and she could have seen those injuries. In the circumstanc1;;s, it is reasonable to infer that only one serious injury was caused by th.: appellant to the deceased which is injury No. 1 while all oth.:r in.juries, as opined by the doctor, could have been caused during the scuffle. This appreciation of evidence by the trial court stands to reason.

The High Court brushed aside the medical evidence to draw an infon:nce that th1;;re was an intention on the part of the appellant to cause all the injuries. Thi: evidence of the Doctor mi: ans that injury Nos. 4 to 10, which art: mere ubrasions or skin deep, could not havt been caused by him but thtst abrasions could havi: been caused by falling on the ground and coming in contact with a rough surface. The probability that while: injury No.1 could havi: betn inf'.icted by t '.vlASUMSH.\ HASA.\;ASl-L'I. MCSALMA. 'I•·. STATE [RAJE'-DRA BABL, J.] 1161 the appellant, injury Nos. 2 and 3 could have been caused in the course of A the scuffle cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter, we think that the view taken by the trial court is preferable to the view taken by the High Court as thm: is a sufficient cogency in the reasoning adopted by the trial court.

The High Court docs not appear to have appreciated this aspect of the matter at alt Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a mt:mbcr of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten yt:ars or more against a pl rs on or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedukd Tribe or such property C belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the efft:ct that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Schedukd Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

To attract the proviswns of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is D that the victim should be a person who bdongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Cod;; is committed against him on the basis that such a p;;rson belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Sc~edulcd Tribe. In the absence of such ingredicnb, no offence under Siection 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the E essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under tht: afore,aid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside In the result, we reverse the judgment of the High Court in so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned and acquit the appellant of the said charge while we set aside the conviction under Section 302 !PC and n:ston; that of the trial court imposing a punishment of five years for an offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC.

It i, brought to our notice that the appellant has already been in cu,tody for more than five years now. Therefore he should be set at libi::rty forthwith. The appeal is allowed G accordingly. vs.s. Appeal allowed.