Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 378
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2024
SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHAT …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and
th
order dated 10 August 2021, passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal
Appeal No. 88 of 2013, whereby the High Court
dismissed
the appeal filed by the Appellant (Accused No.2) thereby
th
affirming the judgment and order dated 5 December 2012
rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Malegaon,
District Nashik (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in
Sessions Case No.76 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.03.21
16:16:35 IST
Reason:
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine
1
of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for
two months. The appellant was also convicted under Section
324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine
of Rs.500/-, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for
one month.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal
are as under:
2.1 The case of the prosecution is that Bapu Motiram Achat
(complainant), Motiram Deoram Achat (deceased), Sudam
Prabhakar Achat (appellant herein) and Prabhat Deoram
Achat (co-accused) are all residents of Sitane, Taluka
Malegaon, District Nashik. The deceased and the co-accused
were brothers. Their agricultural fields were situated
adjacent to each other with a common boundary and a
common well. Further, the complainant is the son of the
deceased and the appellant is the son of the co-accused.
th
2.2 On 15 July 2009, when the complainant had gone to
his field, the appellant hurled abuses at the complainant
with respect to the use of common boundary ( ) to
Bundh
operate the electric pump on the well. The complainant
2
returned home and narrated the incident to his parents.
Thereafter, the complainant and his parents went to the field
at 12:00 Noon and asked the appellant an explanation as to
why he was obstructing the complainant. Upon such
confrontation, the appellant and the co-accused became
aggressive. The co-accused armed with an axe and the
appellant armed with a stick assaulted the deceased and the
complainant.
2.3 The complainant and the deceased both sustained
injuries. The people working in the nearby field namely,
Chhagan Krishna Achat (PW-1), Krishna Deoram Achat and
mother of the complainant i.e. Sojabai (PW-7), separated and
took the complainant and the deceased to the Government
Hospital, Malegaon. The report of the complainant was
recorded at 4:15 PM and Crime Case No.171 of 2009 was
registered under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. The deceased was thereafter shifted to
Government Hospital, Dhule. However, he succumbed to
injuries on the same night and Section 302 of the IPC was
added.
3
2.4 The Investigating Officer, Mahindra Ahire (for short,
“IO”) prepared a spot panchnama (Exhibit 26). The appellant
th
was arrested on the next day i.e., 16 July 2009. Further,
inquest panchnama (Exhibit 20) was drawn, clothes of the
deceased were seized under panchnama (Exhibit 21), post-
mortem was carried out and the report (Exhibit 15) was
prepared. The co-accused in police custody, gave a
memorandum statement (Exhibit 11) which resulted in the
recovery of the axe and stick (Exhibit 12). At the request of
the IO, evidence of eye-witnesses were recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”) by the Judicial Magistrate.
2.5 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was
filed by the IO in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, FC,
Malegaon and was registered as R.C.C. No.578 of 2009. Since
the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was
committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed
charges against the appellant and co-accused. The charges
were read over and explained to both of them to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was
that of total denial and false implication in the present crime
4
and that the deceased slipped while he was in the field
because of the tin-sheet of the tin-shed and sustained
injuries.
2.6
To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited nine
documents. The accused persons did not examine any of the
prosecution witnesses or any witness in support of their
defence.
2.7 At the end of trial, the trial court convicted the
appellant and the co-accused as aforesaid.
2.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and the co-
accused preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court
challenging the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence awarded by the trial court. The High Court vide the
impugned final judgment and order dismissed the appeal.
2.9 Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was
filed, in which notice was issued limited to the question as to
whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be
converted into Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.
nd
Subsequently, by an order dated 2 February 2024, leave
was granted.
5
3. We have heard Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms.
Rukmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent-State.
4. Ms. Matwankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submits that the prosecution relies only on the
eye witnesses who are the relatives of the deceased. It is
submitted that the relatives of the deceased being interested
witnesses, the conviction only on the basis of their testimony
would not be sustainable in law. She therefore submitted
that the conviction is not sustainable and the appeal
deserves to be allowed.
5. Ms. Matwankar, in the alternative, submits that, from
the evidence on record, it is clear that the offence would not
come under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and at the most,
it would come under Part I or II of Section 304 of IPC.
6. Per contra , Ms. Bobde, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submits that both the courts below
concurrently, on the basis of the perusal of the evidence,
found the accused guilty of the offence charged with. She
submits that, in view of the concurrent findings of fact, no
6
interference is warranted in the present appeal.
7. From the perusal of the Post-Mortem Report
(Exhibit-15) and the evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-4),
we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding that
the death of the deceased is homicidal. We also do not find
any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that
it is the appellant along with the co-accused who have
caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.
8. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant and
the co-accused are liable for the death of the deceased, we
will have to now examine whether the prosecution has
proved its case that the offence committed by the appellant
would come under the ambit of Section 302 IPC or it can be
altered into a lesser offence.
9. No doubt that all the witnesses are related to the
deceased. As a matter of fact, the deceased and the
complainant on the one hand and the accused persons on
the other hand are also closely related to each other
inasmuch they are first cousins. It is however a settled
position of law that merely because the witnesses are
relatives of the deceased and as such are interested
7
witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their
testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of
such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution
and circumspection.
10. A perusal of the evidence of Chhagan Krishna Achat
(PW-1) who is the nephew of the deceased would reveal that
the fields of the accused persons and the deceased are
adjoining each other. His testimony would further reveal that
when he returned to the field on the date of the incident, he
saw that there was a quarrel going on between the accused
persons and the deceased. His testimony would further
reveal that the co-accused Prabhakar was assaulting the
deceased with the blunt side of the axe and the appellant
was armed with a stick and he assaulted the deceased with
the said stick. It is to be noted that Motiram died when he
was taken to the Government Hospital, Dhule. The other
injured person Bapu Motiram succumbed to injury about a
month after the date of incident.
11. A perusal of evidence of PW-1 would reveal that the
deceased was standing on the bundh which was only 15-20
feet on the northern side of the house of the co-accused. To
8
the same effect is the evidence of the other eye witnesses.
12. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself, it
is clear that the place of incident is near the house of
accused persons. The possibility of a quarrel taking place on
account of previous enmity between the accused persons and
the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the
moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting
the deceased cannot be ruled out. It can further be seen that
the weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe.
These tools are easily available in any agricultural field. It
therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation.
13. It is further to be noted that the appellant is alleged to
have used the stick whereas the co-accused is said to have
used the blunt side of the axe. If their intention was to kill
the deceased, there was no reason as to why the co-accused
would not have used the sharp side of the axe. The nature of
injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would
also not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage
or acted in a cruel manner.
14. In that view of the matter, we find that the present case
would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the
9
appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of
Section 300 of IPC. It is further to be noted that the appellant
has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months.
15.
We are therefore inclined to partly allow the appeal. In
the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is partly allowed;
(ii) The conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted to
Part I of Section 304 IPC;
(iii) The appellant is sentenced to the period already
undergone; and
(iv) The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if
not required in any other case.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 21, 2025.
10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 378
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2024
SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHAT …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and
th
order dated 10 August 2021, passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal
Appeal No. 88 of 2013, whereby the High Court
dismissed
the appeal filed by the Appellant (Accused No.2) thereby
th
affirming the judgment and order dated 5 December 2012
rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Malegaon,
District Nashik (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in
Sessions Case No.76 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.03.21
16:16:35 IST
Reason:
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine
1
of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for
two months. The appellant was also convicted under Section
324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine
of Rs.500/-, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for
one month.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal
are as under:
2.1 The case of the prosecution is that Bapu Motiram Achat
(complainant), Motiram Deoram Achat (deceased), Sudam
Prabhakar Achat (appellant herein) and Prabhat Deoram
Achat (co-accused) are all residents of Sitane, Taluka
Malegaon, District Nashik. The deceased and the co-accused
were brothers. Their agricultural fields were situated
adjacent to each other with a common boundary and a
common well. Further, the complainant is the son of the
deceased and the appellant is the son of the co-accused.
th
2.2 On 15 July 2009, when the complainant had gone to
his field, the appellant hurled abuses at the complainant
with respect to the use of common boundary ( ) to
Bundh
operate the electric pump on the well. The complainant
2
returned home and narrated the incident to his parents.
Thereafter, the complainant and his parents went to the field
at 12:00 Noon and asked the appellant an explanation as to
why he was obstructing the complainant. Upon such
confrontation, the appellant and the co-accused became
aggressive. The co-accused armed with an axe and the
appellant armed with a stick assaulted the deceased and the
complainant.
2.3 The complainant and the deceased both sustained
injuries. The people working in the nearby field namely,
Chhagan Krishna Achat (PW-1), Krishna Deoram Achat and
mother of the complainant i.e. Sojabai (PW-7), separated and
took the complainant and the deceased to the Government
Hospital, Malegaon. The report of the complainant was
recorded at 4:15 PM and Crime Case No.171 of 2009 was
registered under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. The deceased was thereafter shifted to
Government Hospital, Dhule. However, he succumbed to
injuries on the same night and Section 302 of the IPC was
added.
3
2.4 The Investigating Officer, Mahindra Ahire (for short,
“IO”) prepared a spot panchnama (Exhibit 26). The appellant
th
was arrested on the next day i.e., 16 July 2009. Further,
inquest panchnama (Exhibit 20) was drawn, clothes of the
deceased were seized under panchnama (Exhibit 21), post-
mortem was carried out and the report (Exhibit 15) was
prepared. The co-accused in police custody, gave a
memorandum statement (Exhibit 11) which resulted in the
recovery of the axe and stick (Exhibit 12). At the request of
the IO, evidence of eye-witnesses were recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”) by the Judicial Magistrate.
2.5 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was
filed by the IO in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, FC,
Malegaon and was registered as R.C.C. No.578 of 2009. Since
the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was
committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed
charges against the appellant and co-accused. The charges
were read over and explained to both of them to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was
that of total denial and false implication in the present crime
4
and that the deceased slipped while he was in the field
because of the tin-sheet of the tin-shed and sustained
injuries.
2.6
To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited nine
documents. The accused persons did not examine any of the
prosecution witnesses or any witness in support of their
defence.
2.7 At the end of trial, the trial court convicted the
appellant and the co-accused as aforesaid.
2.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and the co-
accused preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court
challenging the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence awarded by the trial court. The High Court vide the
impugned final judgment and order dismissed the appeal.
2.9 Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was
filed, in which notice was issued limited to the question as to
whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be
converted into Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.
nd
Subsequently, by an order dated 2 February 2024, leave
was granted.
5
3. We have heard Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms.
Rukmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent-State.
4. Ms. Matwankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submits that the prosecution relies only on the
eye witnesses who are the relatives of the deceased. It is
submitted that the relatives of the deceased being interested
witnesses, the conviction only on the basis of their testimony
would not be sustainable in law. She therefore submitted
that the conviction is not sustainable and the appeal
deserves to be allowed.
5. Ms. Matwankar, in the alternative, submits that, from
the evidence on record, it is clear that the offence would not
come under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and at the most,
it would come under Part I or II of Section 304 of IPC.
6. Per contra , Ms. Bobde, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submits that both the courts below
concurrently, on the basis of the perusal of the evidence,
found the accused guilty of the offence charged with. She
submits that, in view of the concurrent findings of fact, no
6
interference is warranted in the present appeal.
7. From the perusal of the Post-Mortem Report
(Exhibit-15) and the evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-4),
we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding that
the death of the deceased is homicidal. We also do not find
any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that
it is the appellant along with the co-accused who have
caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.
8. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant and
the co-accused are liable for the death of the deceased, we
will have to now examine whether the prosecution has
proved its case that the offence committed by the appellant
would come under the ambit of Section 302 IPC or it can be
altered into a lesser offence.
9. No doubt that all the witnesses are related to the
deceased. As a matter of fact, the deceased and the
complainant on the one hand and the accused persons on
the other hand are also closely related to each other
inasmuch they are first cousins. It is however a settled
position of law that merely because the witnesses are
relatives of the deceased and as such are interested
7
witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their
testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of
such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution
and circumspection.
10. A perusal of the evidence of Chhagan Krishna Achat
(PW-1) who is the nephew of the deceased would reveal that
the fields of the accused persons and the deceased are
adjoining each other. His testimony would further reveal that
when he returned to the field on the date of the incident, he
saw that there was a quarrel going on between the accused
persons and the deceased. His testimony would further
reveal that the co-accused Prabhakar was assaulting the
deceased with the blunt side of the axe and the appellant
was armed with a stick and he assaulted the deceased with
the said stick. It is to be noted that Motiram died when he
was taken to the Government Hospital, Dhule. The other
injured person Bapu Motiram succumbed to injury about a
month after the date of incident.
11. A perusal of evidence of PW-1 would reveal that the
deceased was standing on the bundh which was only 15-20
feet on the northern side of the house of the co-accused. To
8
the same effect is the evidence of the other eye witnesses.
12. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself, it
is clear that the place of incident is near the house of
accused persons. The possibility of a quarrel taking place on
account of previous enmity between the accused persons and
the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the
moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting
the deceased cannot be ruled out. It can further be seen that
the weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe.
These tools are easily available in any agricultural field. It
therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation.
13. It is further to be noted that the appellant is alleged to
have used the stick whereas the co-accused is said to have
used the blunt side of the axe. If their intention was to kill
the deceased, there was no reason as to why the co-accused
would not have used the sharp side of the axe. The nature of
injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would
also not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage
or acted in a cruel manner.
14. In that view of the matter, we find that the present case
would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the
9
appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of
Section 300 of IPC. It is further to be noted that the appellant
has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months.
15.
We are therefore inclined to partly allow the appeal. In
the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is partly allowed;
(ii) The conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted to
Part I of Section 304 IPC;
(iii) The appellant is sentenced to the period already
undergone; and
(iv) The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if
not required in any other case.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 21, 2025.
10