Case: Shaikh Matin Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another

1. The accused appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life is in appeal before us. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. The undisputed facts of the case that will require a notice for the purposes of determination of the liability of the accused appellant are that he had come to the place of occurrence without being armed with the weapon of the alleged offence which was a heavy wooden log. Admittedly, the assault by the accused appellant on the deceased was a single blow assault which had caused the following injuries on the deceased: 1. 3 cm. Contused lacerated wound over saggital suture of scalp. 2. 4 cm. Fracture skull of frontal bone over right side above right eye. 3. Subdural haematome 3 x 4 cm. below fracture site, brain was congested. 4. The doctor (P.W.13) who had conducted the postmortem had categorically deposed that the injuries found on the person of the deceased, as described above, were caused by a single blow and that the victim had suffered only one external injury, namely, 3 cm. contused lacerated wound over saggital suture of scalp. In fact, it is the opinion of the doctor (P.W.13) that the same blow had caused the fracture which is injury No.2 and subdural haematome which is injury No.3. 5. Taking into account the fact that the accused appellant had delivered only a single blow but on a vital part of the body of the deceased i.e. head and that despite opportunities he had refrained/restrained himself from inflicting any further injury on the deceased we are of the view that the present is not a case under Section 302 of the IPC. Rather, according to us, it would be more appropriate to hold that the accused appellant is liable for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. We, therefore, convert the conviction of the accused appellant to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. As the accused appellant admittedly has been in custody for nearly nine years now we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is converted to the period of custody already suffered.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]5. Taking into account the fact that the accused appellant had delivered only a single blow but on a vital part of the body of the deceased i.e. head and that despite opportunities he had refrained/restrained himself from inflicting any further injury on the deceased we are of the view that the present is not a case under Section 302 of the IPC. Rather, according to us, it would be more appropriate to hold that the accused appellant is liable for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. We, therefore, convert the conviction of the accused appellant to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. As the accused appellant admittedly has been in custody for nearly nine years now we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is converted to the period of custody already suffered.