Supreme Court Reduces Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide in Bamboo Stick Assault Case.
20 November 2024
Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law | Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law
The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment of Sunny Santosh Dharmu Bhosale v/s The State of Maharashtra, has altered the conviction of an appellant from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – murder – to Section 304 Part I IPC, dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This change comes after a thorough examination of the case and the circumstances surrounding the death of the victim, Gopal Bhosale, who was killed following a quarrel.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, Sunny Santosh, had been convicted by the Sessions Court and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Gopal Bhosale, which occurred on 21st March 2014 in the village of Khandala, District Satara. The incident began when the appellant came to the house of Rajendra Bhosale and started abusing him and his wife, Chayya, over a loan. This led to a confrontation where Gopal Bhosale, who was present with his wife Sunita Bhosale, intervened to stop the appellant's abusive behavior.
The appellant, irked by Gopal Bhosale’s intervention, continued to abuse him. A heated argument ensued, and the appellant left the premises, only to be followed by the deceased who went after him to further resolve the matter. It was at this point that the appellant, using a bamboo stick, assaulted Gopal Bhosale on his head and face, leading to his death.
Investigation and Trial:
Following the incident, an FIR was lodged by Sharad Bhosale, and an investigation was carried out by the police. The appellant was arrested, and various pieces of evidence were gathered, including the bamboo stick, blood-stained clothes, and testimonies from eyewitnesses such as Sunita Bhosale and Rajendra Bhosale. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed. The case then reached the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented:
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel, Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, argued that there were significant contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including Rajendra Bhosale, Sunita Bhosale, and Mangesh Bhosale. He further contended that the prosecution failed to establish any premeditation, suggesting that the death occurred in a moment of sudden provocation during a quarrel, which should lead to a conviction for a lesser offence rather than murder.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, maintained that the evidence of the eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence pointed firmly to the appellant’s guilt. The prosecution argued that the appellant's actions were not those of a person acting in the heat of passion, but rather as someone deliberately intent on causing harm.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and testimonies, concluding that while there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant, the nature of the incident did not justify a conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder. The Court noted that the assault occurred in the heat of the moment following a quarrel, without clear evidence of premeditation. The weapon used, a bamboo stick, was commonly available and not unusual for a village setting. Additionally, the medical evidence showed that the injuries sustained by the deceased did not suggest an act of cruelty or undue advantage by the appellant.
The Court concluded that the case warranted a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This provision is applicable when the accused causes death in circumstances where the act does not qualify as premeditated murder, but is still a result of a deliberate act of harm.
Final Verdict:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC. Considering the time already served by the appellant, the Court determined that the sentence of life imprisonment, already served, was sufficient. The appellant had been in prison for over 9 years, and with remission, had served more than 12 years before being granted bail. Therefore, the Court ruled that the period already spent in custody would suffice for justice to be served.
The Court also discharged any existing bail bonds, bringing the case to a close. This judgment highlights the importance of assessing the circumstances surrounding a death carefully, particularly in cases where the intent or premeditation behind the act is unclear.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision reflects a nuanced approach to justice, recognizing the need to adjust sentences in light of the facts, particularly when there are elements of provocation and lack of prior planning.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973