Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 1576 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.9264 of 2018)
SUBHASH GANGADHAR JADHAV Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
BANUMATHI, J.:
(1) Leave granted.
th
(2) This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 5
March, 2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Criminal Appeal NO.1252 of 2007 in and by which the High Court
affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section
302 I.P.C. and sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo life
imprisonment.
nd
(3) By order dated 22 October, 2018, this Court issued notice
limited to the nature of offence and the quantum of punishment.
Case of the prosecution is that the deceased-Kanhu Rao and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2018.12.12
16:37:00 IST
Reason:
appellant-accused, Subhash Gangadhar Jadhav, were employees of
Symboisis Sampro Syntheline Company at MIDC, Village Gonde. At
nd
the night of 2 May, 2005, while the accused-Subhash Gangadhar
2
Jadhav was working in the night shift, the deceased-Kanhu Rao
served the tea to those working in the night shift and at that
time there was exchange of hot words between the appellant-
accused and the deceased. During which time, the appellant-
accused inflicted injuries on the deceased-Kanhu Rao with
wooden rod of the axe. The appellant-inflicted four to five
injuries on the person of the deceased due to which the
deceased-Kanhu Rao died on the spot.
(4) We have heard Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State, and also perused the
impugned judgment and the evidence/materials on record.
(5) The Contention of learned counsel for the appellant-
accused is that there was no premeditation on the part of the
appellant and while the appellant was working in the night
shift of the fateful day, the deceased-Kanhu Rao served the tea
to the appellant and also to others and that while there was
exchange of words between them, the appellant has inflicted
injuries upon the deceased-Kanhu Rao all of a sudden. It was
submitted that there was no premeditation or intention of
committing the murder of the deceased-Kanhu Rao by the
appellant.
(6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also that there was no premeditation of the appellant-accused
in inflicting injuries on the deceased-Kanhu Rao, the
conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 I.P.C. is
3
modified to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and the sentence awarded
to the appellant-accused is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
(7) The appeal is partly allowed and the appellant-accused is
ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other
case.
..........................J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
..........................J.
(INDIRA BANERJEE)
NEW DELHI,
DECEMBER 7, 2018.