Partly allowed

Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Oct 2013APEAL/433/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Section 307 IPC for stabbing, the High Court held that injuries did not pose a real danger to life. The Court altered the conviction to Section 324 IPC, condoned time spent in custody, and accepted a deposit of Rs. 25,000 as additional fine and compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC altered to Section 324 IPC; sentence of rigorous imprisonment maintained as period undergone sufficed; additional fine of Rs. 25,000 allowed.

Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 cr appeal 433.94

¶2

smt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 433 OF 1994

¶5

Mr. Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan ) age 25 years, Occ. Wireman, ) Residing at House No. 448, Shukrawar ) Peth, Solapur. ).. Appellant (Ori. Accused) Versus.

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra,	)
(Bapu Shankar Dhage, R/O.	)
Somwar Peth, Solapur.	)
2. Vinayak Kuberappa Budharam	)
R/o. 37, Somwar Peth, Solapur.	)
(Reported to be dead)	)
3. Raju Vishwanath Sawant	)
R/o. New Budhwar Peth, Solapur.	) .. Respondents. (Ori. Complainant)
Mr. U.R. Agondsurve, for the appellant.
Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2013.

¶8

JUDGEMENT

¶9

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶10

1/5

¶11

2 cr appeal 433.94

¶12

The Appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 155 of 1993 by 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur on 30^th July, 1994. He is convicted for the offence punishable u/sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default R.I. for one year.

¶13

Injured was Vinayak assaulted by the accused by stabbing at the abdomen. The injuries suffered by Vinayak are described as dangerous to the life.

¶14

P.W. 9 Dr. Udhav Borade, Medical Officer who has examined the injured Vinayak K. Budharam on 14^th September, 1992, has noted the following injuries :-

¶15

“1. Incised wound over left hypo condriun

¶16

size 5 x 3 cm. x M

¶17

Incised wound over posterior left arm size 6 x 3 cm. muscle deep.”

¶18

(Quoted from Page 42 of the Appeal)

¶19

The description of injury to Vinayak though described as grave the doctor has stated certain things viz.

¶20

(a) As to whether the injury was cavitity deep.

¶21

(b) As to whether any internal organ vital or otherwise was hurt.

¶22

¶23

(d) The injury certificates disclose that X-ray of chest of abdomen was done and nothing abnormal was detected.

¶24

2/5

¶25

3 cr appeal 433.94

¶26

On the same day, P.W. 9 Dr. Uddhav Borade, Medical Officer also examined Raju Vishwanath Sawant and has noted the following injuries.

¶27

“1. Incised wound over Rt. hypo condrium size 4 x 3 cm. x muscle deep

¶28

Incised wound over supra sturner notch 1 x 1 cm. Muscle deep.

¶29

Incised wound over left. Mandible size 1 x 1 cm. muscle deep.”

¶30

(Quoted from Page 42 of the Appeal)

¶31

Out of two victims, injuries of one victim viz. Raju Vishwanath Sawant were minor as those were only muscle deep.

¶32

Though said injuries suffered by Vishwanath are described as dangerous to the life, it is not described as to why it was so dangerous.

¶33

In the aforesaid premises, the learned Sessions Judge has held accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶34

Though it is stated by PW9 Dr. Uddhav Borade that the injuries were dangerous to life, the said statement is not corroborated by the factual reasons based on any evidence, and it is seen that injuries were not fatal and did not pose danger to life.

¶35

3/5

¶36

4 cr appeal 433.94

¶37

In the aforesaid background, in the midst of hearing, this Court had indicated to the Appellant that the conviction u/sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be converted to section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and Court would like to know if appellant offers to pay some compensation to the victim, to mitigate, and to have lenience in sentence. Learned Advocate for appellant then prayed for adjournment for enabling him to take instructions.

¶38

Yesterday when case was taken up, learned Advocate for appellant has reported that victim Vinayak Kuberappa Budharam is dead, and made a statement before this Court that the appellant is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- for payment to Raju Vishwanath Sawant, and prayed for permission to deposit the amount and prays for lenience in sentence.

¶39

Permission for deposit as prayed was granted. Today Advocate for Appellant has tendered before this Court an Affidavit confirming oral statement. He has also stated that a sum of Rs.25,000/- is deposited in this Court.

¶40

This Court holds that the conviction u/sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code does not sustain and deserves to be altered to Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. In the interest of justice, the sentence of period undergone shall suffice with additional fine of amount of Rs.25,000/-

¶41

4/5

¶42

5 cr appeal 433.94

¶43

As regards the amount of compensation, which is deposited in this Court is concerned, the same be transferred to the Sessions Court, Solapur for payment to Raju Vishwanath Sawant.

¶44

The Sessions Court, Solapur shall issue intimation to Raju Vishwanath Sawant with regard to deposit. The said amount of deposit be kept in Fixed Deposit in order that as and when injured Raju Vishwanath Sawant comes forward to receive said amount, the amount can be paid to him alongwith accruals thereon.

¶45

Appeal is partly allowed in terms of foregoing paragraph Nos. 13 to 15.

¶46

(A. H. JOSHI, J.)

¶47

5/5

Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan 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

Shewanta Anandrao Powar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Budharam Ganpat Sarnobat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Budharam Ganpat Sarnobat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pandurang Ramchandra Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjeev Anandrao Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rizwan G. Merchant Vs the State of Maharashtra