Case: Ninaji Raoji Boudha &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Maharashtra

fissured fractures were "due to blow by some hard and blunt substance, or by a fall from height with head downwards on a hard substance." It is therefore quite clear t hat there was only one blow on the head which caused Bhonajis death, and the High Court misread the evidence in taking the view that more than one blow was given on the head of the deceased.9. This has made it necessary for us to examine the further question whether the High Court was justified in holding that both the appellants were guilty of the offence under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. Here again, we find that the evidence on the record has not been read correctly. Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 2), Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3), SA Ram (P.W. S) and Sukhdev (P.W. 7) have been examined as eye witness of the beating which was given to Bhonaji. The High Court has held that their evidence was "acceptable", and that there was "nothing to cast any doubt" on their evidence. Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 2) stated in the trial court that appellant Ninaji gave two blows to Bhonaji with a stick, but did not state on what parts of the body those blows were inflicted. She stated further that appellant Raoji gave a blow with a stick on Bhonajis back, near the neck: She however admitted during her cross-examination that she could not, explain why she did not mention in her statement to the police that Ninaji and Raoji gave blows on any particular part of Bhonajis body. Her statement could not therefore go to prove that appellants Ninaji and Raoji inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. We have examined the statement of Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3) also. She is the daughter-in- law o f the deceased, being the-wife of Rambhau. She stated that she had heard the noise, but came out only after feeding her child and saw that Bhonaji` hat fallen down on his face and the appellants were running away. While her statement may go to prove the presence of the appellants at the place of incident, it does not prove that both of them dealt blows on the head of the deceased. Sri Ram (P.W. 5) stated that appellant Ninaji gave two blows with a stick on the head of Bhonaji, and that appellant Raoji gave a blow with a khunt near his neck. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not state before the police about the place where the appellants dealt blows with their sticks on the person of Bhonaji. His statement could not al so therefore prove the infliction of blows by both the appellants on the head of the deceased. That leaves the statement of Sukhdev (P.W. 7) for consideration. He merely stated that while he could not state the exact number of the accused or their features, he saw that, out of seven or eight persons, three beat Bhonaji with sticks. He did not state about the infliction of any injury on the head, by any of the appellants. It would thus appear that the High Court could not possibly have reached the conclusion, on the basis of the statements of Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 2), Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3), Sri Ram (P.W. S) and Sukhdev (P.W. 7) that more than one blow was inflicted on the head of the deceased, or that the one blow which was found there as a result of the post-mortem examination was inflicted by the one or the other of the two appellants.The evidence on record therefore went to show that the, appellants did not have the common intention of giving a beating to Bhonaji when they reached his house for, as has been shown, they found him sitting outside the house on his oota but passed him by in search of Samadhan who was dressing his injuries inside the house. Bhonaji asked Tulsi Ram Chowkidar to make a report and to get ready a bullock cart for going to the police station. It was then that injuries were inflicted an his person by the appellants Ninaji and Raoji. Out of those injuries, one was a forceful blow on the head which caused a depressed fracture and fissures all over, and resulted in the ultimate death of Bhonai; The other injuries were on the neck (back side), knees and the right elbow of the deceased and were simple injuries. As has been shown. there was no reliable evidence on the record to prove whether the fatal blow on the head was caused by Ninaji or Raoji. The other blows did not fall on any vital part of the body and, in the absence of evidence to establish that their common intention was to cause death it appears that the appellants had the common intention of causing grievous injury with the lathi and the khunt. They could therefore be convicted of an offence under s. 325 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and not s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C.10. It may also be mentioned that while the High Court stated at one place that the appellants must be taken to have the knowledge that the injury which they intended to cause to Bhonaji was "likely to result" in his death, it observed at another pl ace that the appellants were guilty of an offence falling under section 300, fourthly, because they "ought to have known that their act was so imminently dangerous having regard to the age and condition of the victim Bhonaji that their act must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." No categorical finding has therefore been given by the High Court one way or the other. On the other hand, as has been shown, the liability of the accused has not been examined with due regard to the facts and circumstances which had been clearly established on the record and to which reference has been made above.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have been taken through the evidence on the record, and we find that there is no justification for the argument that the fatal injury was caused to Bhonaji at gothan, and not in front of his house. We have gone through the appellate judgment of the High Court, and we are satisfied that while Bhonajis house was quite near the gothan, there can be no doubt that the accused went to his house, after the beating which had taken place at gothan. As we shall show in a while, there is also satisfactory evidence to prove that Bhonaji was sitting in front of his house when he was beaten thehave been taken through the evidence on the record, and we find that there is no justification for the argument that the fatal injury was caused to Bhonaji at gothan, and not in front of his house. We have gone through the appellate judgment of the High Court, and we are satisfied that while Bhonajis house was quite near the gothan, there can be no doubt that the accused went to his house, after the beating which had taken place at gothan. As we shall show in a while, there is also satisfactory evidence to prove that Bhonaji was sitting in front of his house when he was beaten thewe shall show, there is justification for the argument that in arriving at this decision the High Court misread the evidence in vital particulars and committed an apparent error of law asagain, we find that the evidence on the record has not been read correctly. Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 2), Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3), SA Ram (P.W. S) and Sukhdev (P.W. 7) have been examined as eye witness of the beating which was given to Bhonaji. The High Court has held that their evidence was "acceptable", and that there was "nothing to cast any doubt" on their evidence. Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 2) stated in the trial court that appellant Ninaji gave two blows to Bhonaji with a stick, but did not state on what parts of the body those blows were inflicted. She stated further that appellant Raoji gave a blow with a stick on Bhonajis back, near the neck: She however admitted during her cross-examination that she could not, explain why she did not mention in her statement to the police that Ninaji and Raoji gave blows on any particular part of Bhonajis body. Her statement could not therefore go to prove that appellants Ninaji and Raoji inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. We have examined the statement of Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3) also. She is the daughter-in- law o f the deceased, being the-wife of Rambhau. She stated that she had heard the noise, but came out only after feeding her child and saw that Bhonaji` hat fallen down on his face and the appellants were running away. While her statement may go to prove the presence of the appellants at the place of incident, it does not prove that both of them dealt blows on the head of the deceased. Sri Ram (P.W. 5) stated that appellant Ninaji gave two blows with a stick on the head of Bhonaji, and that appellant Raoji gave a blow with a  khunt near his neck. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not state before the police about the place where the appellants dealt blows with their sticks on the person of Bhonaji. His statement could not al so therefore prove the infliction of blows by both the appellants on the head of the deceased. That leaves the statement of Sukhdev (P.W. 7) for consideration. He merely stated that while he could not state the exact number of the accused or their features, he saw that, out of seven or eight persons, three beat Bhonaji with sticks. He did not state about the infliction of any injury on the head, by any of the appellants. It would thus appear that the High Court could not possibly have reached the conclusion, on the basis of the statements of Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 2), Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3), Sri Ram (P.W. S) and Sukhdev (P.W. 7) that more than one blow was inflicted on the head of the deceased, or that the one blow which was found there as a result of the post-mortem examination was inflicted by the one or the other of the two appellants.The evidence on record therefore went to show that the, appellants did not have the common intention of giving a beating to Bhonaji when they reached his house for, as has been shown, they found him sitting outside the house on his oota but passed him by in search of Samadhan who was dressing his injuries inside the house. Bhonaji asked Tulsi Ram Chowkidar to make a report and to get ready a bullock cart for going to the police station. It was then that injuries were inflicted an his person by the appellants Ninaji and Raoji. Out of those injuries, one was a forceful blow on the head which caused a depressed fracture and fissures all over, and resulted in the ultimate death of Bhonai; The other injuries were on the neck (back side), knees and the right elbow of the deceased and were simple injuries. As has been shown. there was no reliable evidence on the record to prove whether the fatal blow on the head was caused by Ninaji or Raoji. The other blows did not fall on any vital part of the body and, in the absence of evidence to establish that their common intention was to cause death it appears that the appellants had the common intention of causing grievous injury with the lathi and the khunt. They could therefore be convicted of an offence under s. 325 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and not s. 302 read with s. 34may also be mentioned that while the High Court stated at one place that the appellants must be taken to have the knowledge that the injury which they intended to cause to Bhonaji was "likely to result" in his death, it observed at another pl ace that the appellants were guilty of an offence falling under section 300, fourthly, because they "ought to have known that their act was so imminently dangerous having regard to the age and condition of the victim Bhonaji that their act must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." No categorical finding has therefore been given by the High Court one way or the other. On the other hand, as has been shown, the liability of the accused has not been examined with due regard to the facts and circumstances which had been clearly established on the record and to which reference has been made