Partly allowed

Rakeshkumar Navnath Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Apr 2006APEAL/199/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a conviction under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt by an accidental shot from a double barrel gun. It held the act was rash and negligent, convicting the appellant under Section 338 and imposing a fine and compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 325 IPC set aside; accused convicted under Section 338 IPC, sentenced to four months' R.I., fined Rs. 5000, and ordered to pay Rs. 10000 compensation to Gurmit Kaur.

Rakeshkumar Navnath Shukla Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.199 OF 2006
 WITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2006
 Mr. R. N. Shukla. ..Appellant.
 Vs.
 The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent.

¶4

 Mr. J.A. Udaipuri i/by M/s. Udaipuri & Company for
 the Applicant.

¶5

 Mr.Rajesh More, APP. for the State.

¶6

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED : 5/4/2006.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

 1. Heard both sides.

¶9

 2. Appeal is admitted.

¶10

 3. By consent, appeal is heard forthwith.

¶11

 4. Perused the record and proceeding. By the impugned
 judgment and order passed by the II Adhok Addl.
 Sessions Judge, Palghar dated 6.2.2006 the accused
 Rakeshkumar Navnath Shukla is convicted for an offence
 punishable under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and
 sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine
 of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months.

¶12

:2:

¶13

 5. The Advocate for the applicant states that only
 limited argument in this matter is that the conviction
 should be changed under Section 338 of the I.P.C. as
 there was no intention to cause any grievous hurt to the
 injured unknown lady Gurmit Kaur. In my view, the
 conviction imposed under Section 325 is improper and in
 fact, since the injury was caused by dangerous weapon
 double barrel gun, the conviction, if at, all ought to
 have been under Section 326 of the I.P.C. However, it
 is further argued that the grievous hurt was caused
 voluntarily. The prosecution case was that the

¶14

 complainant alongwith her husband went to the State Bank
 of India, Bhoisar Branch to deposit some money. Since
 the receipt was required to be obtained she was waiting
 outside the branch, whereas, her husband was inside the
 bank to collect the receipt. The appellant was security
 guard and he was sitting outside the bank with gun. His
 gun fell from his hand and the bullet accidently hit the
 toe of the complainant who was a lady completely unknown
 to him. In my view, from the facts of the case, it is
 clear that at the highest, act on the part of the
 accused can be said to be grossly negligent act. It is
 correct to say that the toe of the injured was

¶15

 fractured, the wound was a grievous injury. However, in

¶16

 my view, the conviction ought to have been under Section
 338 of the I.P.C. because grievous hurt was caused to
 the injured Gurmit Kaur by a rash and negligent act of

¶17

:3:

¶18

 the accused. In the circumstances, the impugned
 judgment and order is quashed and set aside and the
 conviction and sentence imposed U/s. 325 of the I.P.C.
 is set aside and instead the accused is convicted under
 Section 338 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for the
 period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in
 default to suffer R.I. for 6 months. In addition to
 the fine, he will also liable to pay compensation of
 Rs.10000/- under Section 357 of the I.P.C. This amount
 will be in addition to the fine amount and the
 compensation amount if paid will be payable to the
 injured Gurmit Kaur. The accused will be entitled to
 set off of the term which he has already under gone.
 The fine and compensation amount will be deposited
 within a period of eight weeks from today in the trial
 court. Appeal stands disposed off.

¶19

 Cri. Application No.211 of 2006

¶20

 1. As the appeal has been decided finally. This
 application for bail does not survive and accordingly,
 application stands disposed off.

¶21

(R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Rakeshkumar Navnath Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakeshkumar Navnath Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Madhav Phadnis Vs Walchandnagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Kinit Jayantilal Amin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. .

Shivchandranlal Shivnath Shukla Vs Salikram Basant Nai and Anr.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs M/S Mokashi Aromas Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. Vs Mata Shankar R. Tiwari and Ors.