PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dipak Misra
Shiva Kirti Singh
Judgment Date: 2016-05-06
Court Decision / Holding: Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; substituted with conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC; sentence of life imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; appellant to be released forthwith if not required in another case; appeal allowed to that extent.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; conviction under 302 IPC replaced by 304 Part I; sentence reduced; appellant released forthwith.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE

Respondents

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jayant Muth Raj
• Sabrish Subramanian
• Prabhurama Subramanian
• Deepak Anand

Counsels for Respondents

• Vadrevu V. V. Pattabhiram
• Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Prabhakar Vithal Gholve v. State of Maharashtra is a criminal appeal decided by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The appellant, along with a juvenile co-accused, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing the deceased in Solapur after a minor grievance over a telephonic message. The trial court's judgment in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2004 and the Bombay High Court’s confirmation of the conviction are under challenge. The prosecution's case rests on eyewitness accounts (including PW-4 and PW-6) and medical evidence showing fatal head injuries. The appellant and the juvenile offender allegedly assaulted the deceased with sticks; the other injuries were also observed on the appellant. The core issue is whether there was a motive to kill and whether the appellant acted with premeditation. The Court notes that no motive was established and that the assault occurred in the heat of passion on a minor grievance. Under Section 300 IPC, the court considers Exceptions 1 and 4, concluding the facts amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Consequently, it sets aside the conviction under Section 302 and substitutes it with Section 304 Part I, reducing the sentence to the period already served and directing release forthwith. The appeal is thus allowed to that extent.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 302IPC 304 Part IIPC 300 (Exceptions 1 and 4)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
grave and sudden provocation
Section 300 IPC (Exceptions 1 and 4)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that there is no motive for the murder. The prosecution has failed to establish any motive or premeditation for the attack. The evidence shows that the deceased was assaulted during a sudden altercation arising from a minor issue about a telephonic message not conveyed to the appellant. The post-mortem confirms fatal head injuries, but there is no clear evidence of intent to kill. The defence argues that the injuries occurred in a heat of passion, not premeditated murder, and that under Sections 300 Exception 1 and/or Exception 4 of the IPC, the case falls within culpable homicide not amounting to murder (304 Part I). The appellant sustained injuries himself; the chain of events points to a quarrel rather than a calculated plan to kill. The trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC is therefore unsustainable, and the matter requires modification to Section 304 Part I with an appropriate reduction in sentence. The appellant seeks release in light of the period already undergone and public justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the assault was brutal and fatal, driven by a motive from a small grievance. Eyewitness testimony and medical evidence show head injuries causing death; the juvenile's involvement does not absolve the appellant. The trial court and High Court properly convicted under Section 302 IPC; there is knowledge that the act could cause death; the evidence supports the conviction; no reversible error in the evidentiary chain; the appellate court's assessment should be respected.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 595 A PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE v. ## STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 448 of2016) MAY06,2016 B ## **[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]** - _Penal Code, 1860: s.302 Fatal assault upon the victimdeceased at the hands of the appellant and another accused, a juvenile_ - _Prosecution case was that occurrence originated on account of some minor grievance against the deceased that she did not convey a telephonic message to the appellant_ - _The juvenile offender went to the house of the deceased and assaulted him_ - _When he was overpowered by complainant party, he started crying whereupon the appellant and four others rushed to the place of occurrence_ - _Appellant and juvenile offender used sticks to cause injuries on the head of the deceased which resulted in his death_ - _Conviction of appellant uls.302 attracting sentence of life imprisonment_ - _On appeal, held: There was no reason for the assault except an assertion that the appellant was unhappy on a minor issue that the deceased had received some message on telephone but did not convey the same to the appellant_ - _No case was made out by the prosecution that there was any motive for doing away with the life of the deceased_ - _Conviction of appellant uls.302 set aside and substituted with conviction uls.304 Part I_ - _Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by the appellant._ c D E F ## **Allowing the appeal, the Court** > **HELD: It is evident that there was no motive, alleged or proved, for the occurrence of assault upon the deceased. In the given facts and scenario, it can be safely inferred that there was no intention on the part of the accused persons to cause death. However, the injuries on head did prove fatal and knowledge of such effect of the injuries can be fastened against the appellant. In view of Exception 1 or Exception 4 in Section 300 of the IPC, the case made out against the appellant is that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It would be natural for the family·** 595 G **H** 596 [2016] 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A members of juvenile offender on hearing his cries, to rush for his help .and when injury on the appellant has also been proved there - · is sufficient material to infer the reasonable possibility of a grave and sudden provocation. The assault on the deceased, in absence of intention to cause death could be on account of sudden fight without pre-meditation, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden - B quarrel. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside and is substituted with conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The certificate of imprisonment available on record discloses that the appellant has by now undergone more than 12 years of actual imprisonment which period is sufficient to - c meet the ends of justice. Hence the sentence of imprisonment for life is reduced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by the appellant. [Paras 6, 7] [598-C-G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 448 of2016. D From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2014 of the High Court of Bombay in Crl.A No. 87 of2005. Jayant Muth Raj, Sabrish Subramanian, Prabhurama Subramanian, Deepak Anand for the Appellant. E Vadrevu V. V. Pattabhiram, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and order under appeal dated 06.01.2014 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay F dismissed Criminal Appeal No.87 of2005 preferred by the appellant and confirmed his conviction for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC as well as sentence oflife imprisonment and fine ofRs.1000/-with a default clause as imposed by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Solapur by judgment dated 31.12.2004 in Sessions Case No.132 of 2004. G H 2. The main issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant is whether conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is justified and lawful when the prosecution, as per submissions, has failed to allege and prove any motive for the assault upon the deceased at the hands of the appellant and another accused Balu, a juvenile. It is also contended thatthe courts below failed to appreciate the implications of evidence of 597 PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] PW-6, Bapulal Shaikhlal Golve who is the brother of the deceased and an eye witriess. It was also pointed out that the courts below including the High Court did not appreciate that as per the evidence of the doctor, PW-5 who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the appellant had also sustained two injuries including one contused lacerated wound over left side of forehead above the left eye 2.0 ems x 0.5 ems vertical. The other injury was an abrasion over back central region 0.5 ems x 0.5 ems. Both the injuries were by hard and blunt object. 3. On the basis ofaforesaid materials, according to learned counsel forthe appellant the conviction could at best be valid under Section 304 Part I and not under Section 302 of the !PC. A B c 4. On hearing the counsels for both the parties and going through ., the relevant materials we find that practically there is no reason for the assault except an assertion that the11ppellant was unhappy with a female inmate of the house of prosecution party on a minor issue that she had received some message on telephone but did not convey the same to the appellant. This has ~een disclosed by PW-4 who claims to be an eye witness." No case has been made out by the prosecution that there was any motive for doing away with the life of the deceased. As per manner of assault, accused persons assaulted the deceased as well as PW-4 and one Ishwar. Subsequently, PW-4 has alleged that the deceased was assaulted on head by the appellant as well as the juvenile offender Bafu. According to medical evidence the deceased had received injuries on head resulting into fracture of skull near the parietal left eminence. 5. As noted earlier, PW-6 who is brother of the ~eased has also claimed to be an eye witness. He has deposed that appellant was abusing "his aunt for not communicating a telephonic message but PW-6 managed to pacify and send the appellant back to his house. Thereafter the juvenile offender Ba:lu came to their house and allegedly assaulted PW-4 and the deceased on head by stick. On hearing shouts, PW-6 rushed to the plac-e of occurrence and caught accused Jralu. When he pushed Balu with a view to take him towards Balu's house, Balu shouted in loud voice and entreated to be released. On hearing his shouts the appellant as well as four others came to the spot with sticks. Allegedly the appellant assaulted tlie deceased by stick on head followed by Balu who also assaulted the deceased by stick on head. The deceased fell down and died immediately. D E F G 6. Taking an overall broad view of the facts noticed above; it is H 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 2 S.C.R.' - A abundantly clear that the occurrence originated on account of some minor grievance against a lady that she did not convey a telephonic message to the appellant. The appellant thereafter came back to his house. For reasons which are not very clear, the juvenile offender Balu went to the house of the prosecution party and allegedly committed assault for which he was overpowered. On his cries, the appellant and four others rushed - B with sticks. The appellant, as per medical evidence, sustained two injuries by hard and blunt substance and some persons of the prosecution party also received injuries on account of assault by the accused persons. The appellant as well as juvenile offender Balu used stick to cause injuries on the head of the deceased who died due to such assault. It is evident, - c as noticed earlier, that there was no motive, alleged or proved, for the occurrence of assault upon the deceased. In the given facts and scenario, it can be safely inferred that there was no intention on the part of the accused persons to cause death. However, the injuries on head did prove fatal and knowledge of such effect of the injuries can be fastened against the appellant. - D 7. In the facts and circumstances noted above, there appears merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of Exception I or Exception 4 in Section 300 of the IPC the case made out against the appellant is that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It would be natural for the family members of juvenile offender E Balu on hearing his cries, to rush for his help and when injury on the appellant has also been proved there is sufficient material to infer the reasonable possibility of a grave and sudden provocation. The assault on the deceased, in absence of intention to cause death could be on account of sudden fight without pre-meditation, in the heat of passion and upon a F sudden quarrel. We therefore feel persuaded to and do set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and substitute the same with conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The certificate of imprisonment available on record discloses that the appellant has by now undergone more than I 2 years of actual imprisonment. The aforesaid period, in our estimate is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Hence - G the sentence of imprisonment for life is reduced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by the appellant. In view of such modification in the sentence, the appellant is directed to be released from custody forthwith if not required to be kept in custody in connection with any other criminal case. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Appeal allo11·ed. - H Devika Gujral