CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

Facts: Dr. Mukesh Ramanlal Chandak (PW-1), in an oral statement to the Police Sub-Inspector on 1st September, 2014 about his son Yug, aged 8 years being missing. Dr. Chandak stated that, on 1st September, 2014, when he was present with his wife at the hospital, she told him that their driver Raju Tote had informed her on the phone that their son went along with somebody. Dr. Chandak (PW-1) came home and inquired from Arun Parmanand Meshram (PW-31), the watchman of their housing society, "Guru Vandana Apartment 4", who informed him that at about 3:45 pm, when he was sitting near the gate of the Apartment, an unknown, fair complexioned boy, aged about 20-25 years, wearing a red half sleeves T-shirt, full white pants with a white handkerchief wrapped around his face, came to him, riding a black scooty. This boy parked his vehicle near the footpath in front of the gate and asked Arun Parmanand Meshram (PW-31) whether Yug has come home. Arun Parmanand Meshram (PW-31) replied in the negative and asked him to go inside and find out for himself but the boy remained at the gate itself. He had worn the clothes (uniform) like that of the clothes of the employees of Dr. Chandak's clinic. After about 15 minutes, Yug, came in his school dress. He kept his school bag on chair meant for him and told Arun Parmanand Meshram (PW-31) to leave the school bag at his Apartment, who told him that he will require half an hour to do the same. Thereafter, he saw Yug going towards Chhapru Nagar Chowk along with the boy on his scooty. Arun Parmanand Meshram (PW-31) was under the impression that the said boy might be an employee of Dr. Chandak's clinic because his clothes were like the uniform that his employees wear. There is overwhelming evidence of A-1 having motive to cause damage to Dr. Chandak on account of payment of less salary, more work and scolding on account of over-charging customers. Such motive gets further strengthened by the desire in A-1 to get rich even by robbing employer of Sandeep Katre (PW-8), when he planned looting of cash. Such evidence is corroborated by Sonam Meshram (PW-19), the friend of A-1. The desire to get rich by whatever means was a driving force with A-1 to kidnap a young child of 8 years, who was a school going innocent child, who happened to be a son of well-to-do dentist couple.

Held: The motive of the Accused to take life was to become rich by not doing hard work but by demanding ransom after kidnapping a young, innocent boy of 8 years. Thus, having considered all the circumstances and facts on record, we are of the considered view that the present case falls short of the "rarest of rare" cases where a death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the Appellants. It appears to us in light of all cumulative circumstances that the cause of justice will be effectively served by invoking the concept of special sentencing as evolved by this Court in the cases of Swamy Shraddananda and Sriharan. Thus, the present appeals succeed in part. The Judgment and Order passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court convicting the Accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 302 and 364A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. However, the death sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, is converted into the life imprisonment. It is further observed and directed that the life means till the end of the life with the further observation and direction that there shall not be any remission till the Accused completes 25 years of imprisonment. The Prosecution is required to bring home the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals are allowed in part.

Facts: Shahanaj, the deceased, married the appellant Feroj Mohammad Shaikh about seven years before the incident in question. They have a son and a daughter out of the wed-lock. The said Shahanaj was treated well till the birth of the daughter. After one year of the birth of daughter, accused no. 2 who is the mother in law of the deceased-Shahanaj, started causing mental ill-treatment to the deceased. She used to pass sarcastic remarks at her. The appellant Feroj developed an addiction to alcohol. He would demand money from Shahanaj for consumption of liquor. He would abuse and beat Shahanaj if she refused to oblige him. The appellant sent the deceased-Shahanaj to her maternal place when the daughter of Shahanaj who was one year old and she was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her father. Since the financial condition of the father of the deceased-Shahanaj was precarious she could not fulfill the said demand, as a result of which she had to stay with her father for one year. The father of the deceased-Shahanaj raised the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- by taking hand loan and doing labour work and paid the said amount to accused no. 2-Bilkis. Thereafter the deceased-Shahanaj started co-habiting with the appellant. After two three months again the appellant Feroj started demanding Rs. 10,000/- from the deceased-Shahanaj to be brought from her father for re-payment of personal loan obtained from a finance company. The father of the deceased-Shahanaj fulfilled the said demand also. Despite that the appellant-Feroj once again started demanding Rs. 10,000/- from Shahanaj to be brought from her father. Further on 16.02.2013 at about 10.00 pm he got a call from his niece Shabana from Government Hospital, Osmanabad informing that Shahanaj had sustained burn injuries. The father of the deceased-Shahanaj along with Ex-Sarpanch of the village Umakant Kadam reached Civil Hospital, Osmanabad at 2.00 am and noticed that Shahanaj was fully burnt. He asked Shahanaj as to how the incident took place. Shahanaj told him that at about 9.00 pm in the night of Saturday accused Feroj demanded money from her for drinking liquor. She refused to give money and further stated that she would not give money to him in future also, owing to which a quarrel ensued between her and appellant-Feroj and accused no. 2-Bilkis. Thereafter, appellant-Feroj abused her, poured kerosene on her person. At that time accused-Bilkis was instigating the appellant to kill the deceased. The appellant-Feroj set her on fire by lighting the match stick. Both the accused went out and came back after five minutes. On hearing her screams wife of landlord and Shabana came there and tried to extinguish the fire. She was taken to a hospital by rickshaw. On 17.02.2013 at about 11.00 am Shahanaj breathed her last. The deceased-Shahanaj gave dying declaration to police head constable-Hanmant Kolangade (PW-3) B. No. 808 between 9.10 am and 9.35 am on 17.02.2013.

Held: In the case at hand, it cannot be said that there was complete absence of motive. The dying declaration states that the accused appellant as usual demanded money for drinking liquor. When she refused there ensued a quarrel as usual and thereafter the accused appellant poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. This shows that there was a motive to kill the deceased as she was refusing to give money for drinking liquor. The accused was addicted to drinking has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Satish Bande (PW-5) admittedly is the landlord of the appellant. PW-5 has stated that the appellant-Feroj habitually used to consume liquor due to which there used to be quarrel between him and the deceased. He stated about the burn injuries of the deceased and also stated that accused Feroj came out of the house and poured water on the person of Shahanaj. Thus from the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly recorded conviction against the accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C. In view of this, the appeal is devoid of any substance. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. It was caused by the appellant by setting her on fire after dousing her with kerosene. The appeal is bereft of any merit and hence the appeal is dismissed.

Facts: On the date of incident i.e. 08.02.2012, at about 10:00-11:00 am, when the complainant party namely Manraj, Dilraj, Marhu, Dujram and others were ploughing the field near Kedama Nala, it is alleged that the present accused/appellants and other persons reached there with Lathi-Danda and deadly weapon, in furtherance of common object started beating the complainant party abusing and threatening them to kill, as a result of which Sukul, Kartik, Marhu, Manraj and Dilraj have suffered simple injuries, Basant and Dujram suffered grievous injuries and during treatment Dujram died because of injuries on his head. On the same date i.e. 08.02.2012 at about 17:00 hours injured Sukul Majwar lodged FIR against Dayaram, Mayaram, Sukhraman Yadav, Darwa Yadav, Shrawan Yadav and others under Sections 294, 506, 323, 147 and 148 of IPC which was registered at zero number. Thereafter numbered FIR was registered on 09.02.2012 at 16:35 hours against the aforesaid accused persons. The incident was witnessed by PW-1 Basant, PW-4 Kartikram, PW-6 Sukul, PW-7 Dilraj, PW-10 Manraj, PW-11 Marhuram and P.W. 13 Panmeshwar. As per the statements of P.W. 1 Basant and P.W. 7 Dilraj, it is clear that the land in question belongs to the accused persons and they had prepared the same for cultivation. It is admitted by P.W. 1 Basant that the complainant party wanted to dispossess accused Dayram from the land in question which was given to him by his forefathers and take possession of the same and on account of this dispute quarrel took place between both the parties.

Held: Considering the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses, the admitted fact that the land in question belongs to the accused party, the fact that the complainant party wanted to dispossess the accused from the disputed land on account of which quarrel took place between both the parties in which the complainant party as well as accused Dayaram suffered injuries, the fact that soon after the incident FIR Ex. D-1 was lodged by accused Dayaram against the complainant party, it appears that the accused persons assaulted the complainant party in exercise of right of their self-defence as well as property. D.W. 2 Dayaram has also stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he assaulted the complainant party in exercise of right of self-defence. However, keeping in view the principles of law laid down in the aforecited judgments, considering the fact that while exercising such right of self-defence and property, the deceased was assaulted on vital part i.e. head which resulted in his death, the accused party exceeded their right of private defence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, we are of the opinion that the case of the accused persons is covered by Exception 2 to Section 300 of IPC.