-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.264 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.264 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.264 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra (through Police Inspector, Police Station Sawantwadi, Taluka - Sawantwadi, District - Sindhudurg). ... Appellant. V/s. Siddhesh Anil Shirsat, Age 21 years, R/o. Talebazar, House No.65, Taluka - Deogad, District - Sindhudurg. ... Respondent. Ms. Poornima Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. N.N. Gawankar with Mr. Arfan Sait for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2008. : 25TH JUNE, 2008. : 25TH JUNE, 2008. JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.) : (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.) : (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.) :- . This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. The matter was partly heard on 17th June 2008. On 17th June 2008 we have noted that no orders have been taken from the learned Chief Justice to club this matter along with Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2008. Office has now put up a submission that necessary orders have been obtained on 21.6.2008. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Respondent in this appeal was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) -:2:- of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- I.D. and in default to undergo R.I. for one month. The order further directed that the period undergone by the Accused from 2.1.2006 shall stand set off from the total period of sentence. 3. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this appeal. 4. We have gone through the Judgment of the Trial Court as also the evidence on record. The Respondent Siddhesh was taking education in the College for IInd year at Sawantwadi. He had passed his Higher Secondary School Examination in the First Class. At the relevant time he was working in the Hotel owned by K.C. Shivanna of Sawantwadi. The deceased was the wife of K.C.Shivanna. 5. From the prosecution evidence, what has come on record is that the Respondent was demanding the sum of Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- from his Provident Fund dues which was not paid to him after his services got terminated. This was the amount deducted from his salary when he was in employment. The prosecution case was that the Respondent went to the house of K.C. Shivanna and as he was not found, he asked the money -:3:- from the deceased. There was some altercations whereupon the accused removed the knife from his pocket and inflicted injury in the abdomen of the deceased. In so far as the incident is concerned and the act of stabbing, the learned Judge held with the prosecution. The learned Judge however held that considering the circumstances, the altercation which gave rise to the incident and so also as there was a single stab injury, held that the case would fall under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. 6. After considering the Judgment and the evidence of the witnesses, in our opinion, there was sufficient evidence before the learned Judge to arrive at the conclusion which he arrived at. The learned Judge has noted four aspects of the matter. Firstly, that the accused was a College going student who had secured 73% of marks in H.S.C. Board Examination. Secondly, the Respondent went to the house and even, according to the case of the prosecution, he was demanding the amount of Provident Fund and it is not that the Respondent immediately after the opening of the door attacked the victim. The third factor the learned Judge noted that it was a single blow by knife inflicted in the abdomen and the fourth factor the learned Judge observed that the Respondent proceeded to the Police Station with Constable Gujar on his motor-bike as a pillion rider. In our opinion, -:4:- considering these aspects it does not appear that intention of the Respondent was to kill the deceased. 7. In these circumstances, we cannot find fault in the view taken by the learned Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stand dismissed. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)