Shankar Diwal Wadu v. State of Maharashtra

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S. B. Sinha
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-03-21
Court Decision / Holding: Hence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted to Section 304 Part II IPC; the Section 506 IPC conviction is quashed. The appellant has already undergone 11 years of imprisonment, so the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellant is to be released from jail custody forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shankar Diwal Wadu

Respondents

State of Maharashtra

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ranjan Mukherjee
• (A.C.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shankar Diwal Wadu v. State of Maharashtra concerns a 1995 incident in which the accused allegedly tried to force Kamlibai, the widow of his brother, into his house. When Kamlibai refused, the accused’ s brother Mahu objected, and the accused assaulted Mahu with a wooden plank, causing his death. Eight witnesses testified, including Kamlibai (PW4) and other corroborating witnesses; the medical evidence corroborated the fatal injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 506 IPC, and the Bombay High Court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the core finding of guilt but reframed the offence in light of the circumstances. It held that the act occurred in a sudden fit of anger, not a premeditated murder, and therefore converted the conviction from 302 IPC to 304 Part II IPC, while quashing the 506 IPC conviction. The appellant had already served eleven years in prison; accordingly, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and directed release, subject to other pending cases. The Court relied on jurisprudence addressing provocation and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (with the cited authorities reinforcing the equivalence of sudden anger to Section 304 Part II). The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 302IPC 304 Part IIIPC 506

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical corroboration established that the act fell within culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to a sudden quarrel or fit of anger. The appellant relied on decisions like Pappu v. State of MP and Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana to urge that the circumstances warranted converting murder (302 IPC) to 304 Part II IPC and to seek quashing of the Section 506 IPC conviction; the plea emphasized absence of premeditation and the heat of passion rather than deliberation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that the assault, though not premeditated, was a grave and deliberate act resulting in death, warranting a conviction under 302 IPC with accompanying 506 IPC. It argued the eyewitnesses’ testimony and medical evidence supported murder and intimidation and that the High Court’s findings were sound until the provocation arguments were focused on by the appellant.”},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pappu v. State of M.P.	2006 SCC 391	Positive	Cited by the Court as apposite authority supporting the proposition that a sudden fit of anger can reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying Section 304 Part II IPC.
Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana	2002 SCC 327	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that a killing in a fit of passion without premeditation may fall under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

¥ _-1_ ~ ## SHANKAR DIWAL WADU _v._ # STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ## MARCH 21, 2007 [S.B SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] -< _>-._ _Penal Code, 1860-s. 304 Part If-Murder-In a fit of angerProsecution case supported by evidence of eye-witnesses and other witnessesCorroborated by Medical evidence-Conviction by Courts below ulss 302_ c _and 506-0n appeal, held: Accused rightly held guilty-But since the incident occurred in a fit of anger, conviction altered to one under Section 304 Part IJ-Sentence reduced to already undergone i.e. 11 years._ Appellant - accused caused death of his brother. According to prosecution case, accused wanted to keep PW-4 (widow of his another brother) D as his mistress. PW-4 refused . On the day of incident when the accused was forcibly trying to drag PW 4 in his house, the deceased objected to it. At the objection, accused got outraged and hit him with a wooden plank lying there. The assault resulted in death of the deceased. Complaint regarding the assault was lodged by PW-3 (an eye-witness). Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302/506 IPC. Conviction was confirmed by High Court E Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court .}. _J_ HELD: 1. The courts below have rightly held the appellant guilty. There are eye-witnesses of the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. These eye-witnesses also include PW 4. The allegation of the[F ] prosecution that it was because of PW 4 that the incident occurred is proved by PW 4 herself who is corroborated in all material particulars by PW-J and PW-2, PW-3 is also an eye-witness and th\!re is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case. (Para SJ (255-B-C\ G _--t'._ 2. However, the case comes under section 304/ Part II and not under Section 302 IPC since the incident occurred in a sudden fit of anger. Hence, the conviction under Section 302 is converted to section 304/Part II IPC and the conviction under Section 506 is quashed. The appellant has since already 253 H 254 [2007] 4 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A undergone 11 years imprisonment, the sentence .is reduced to the period already undergone. tparas 6 and 711255-D-FJ _Pappu_ v. _State of M.P.,_ 1200617SCC391 and _Sukhbir Singh_ v. _State of Haryana,_ 1200213 SCC 327, relied on. B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. A. No. 631 of 2000. C Ranjan Mukherjee, and (A.C.) for the Appellant. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2000: 3. The prosecution version is that the accused Shankar Wadi.I• is the E brother of Mahu Wadu who was assaulted by him, which assault resulted in his death. The incident occurred around 8.P.M. on 22. 10.1995 at Kainad Wadu Pada, Laluka Wada, District Thane, where both the accused and the victim were residing along with other close relations. According to the prosecution case, the accused wanted to keep Kamlibai, the widow of his tirotlier'Vasant, as his mistress, but she refused to be his mistress. On the day of the incident F the appellant was forcibly trying to drag Kamlibai to his house. At that very time, he was told by his brother Mahu (the deceased) that he could not force and drag Kamlibai to his house. At this intervention, the accused got enraged· by such unwarranted advice and therefore lifted a wooden plank (pat) and hit Mahu with it on his head, and also kicked and punched him. Mahu died on G the spot. Complaint of this assault was lodged by one Yeshubai who is closely related to both the accused and the victim. On receipt of this report the investigation was conducted and the accused was arrested. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove its charge of murder against the accused and the learned.tria!Judge on appreciation:ofthe evidence came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted ·the accused and· H sentenced him to life imprisonment under Sections 302/506 IPC and also SHANKARDIWALWADU,..STATEOFMAHARASHTRA[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.) 255 """' _>_ _,>_ ' ## imposed a fine. 4. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and hence this appeal by way of special leave. _--J_ ~ 5. We have gone through the record and we agree with t~e view taken B by the courts below that the appellant is guilty. There are eye witnesses of the incident and we see no reason to disbelieve their testimony. These eye witnesses also include Kamlibai (PW4). The allegation of the prosecution that it was because of Kamlibai that the incident occurred is proved by Kamlibai herself who is corroborated in all material particulars by PW-1 and PW-2. PWc 3 Yesubai is also an eye witness and we see no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case. The post mortem report shows a fracture on the scalp of the deceased caused by a hard and blunt object, and according to the doctor this was sufficient to cause death. Both the courts below have carefully considered the evidence on record and we see no reason to take a different view. c D 6. However, we are of the opinion that the case comes under Section 304/Part 2 and not under Section 302 IPC since the incident occurred in a sudden fit of anger. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant vide _Pappu_ v. _State of M.P._ [2006) 7 SCC 391, and _Sukhbir Singh_ v. _State of Haryana_ [2002) 3 SCC 327, are apposite to this case. E _I_ _>-_ ~ 7. Hence, we convert the conviction under Section 302 to Section 304/ /Part 2 IPC and quash the conviction under Section 506. The appellant has already undergone 11 years' imprisonment. Hence, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone and we quash the fine imposed. The appellant shall be released from jail custody forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. F 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.