(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Imtiyaz A. Rahiman Inamdar ________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Maharashtra ______________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No(s) 962 of 2012, decided on April 3, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Though the matter was listed for consideration of the application for bail filed by the appellant, with the consent of the parties we have heard the main Criminal Appeal on merits.
2. This appeal by the accused who is in jail seeks to challenge the order of the High Court of Bombay dated 30th November, 2011 by which the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life has been affirmed by the High Court.
3. We have considered the prosecution case and the evidence of the witnesses, particularly, eye-witness P.W.3 – Mumtaj Bilal Tumake. We have also considered the postmortem report of Dr. Ashok Kanki (P.W. 11) who had described the injuries found on the deceased as follows:
“1) Stab injury on the back near lateral margin of left scapula at 6th intercostals space. 1-¼? × ½? cavity deep, elliptical in shape with clean margins.
2) Incised wound on lateral aspect of left forearm, 2? × 1?, skin deep, elliptical in shape with clean margins.
3) Incised wound on lateral aspect of left thigh about knee, 2? × ¾?.
4) Incised wound at Rt. Midclavicular region ½? × ½? skin deep.
5) Incised wound at Rt. Axilla, anterior aspect, ½? × ¼? skin deep.
6) Incised wound on left buttock 1-½? × ¾ × ¾?.
7) Two scratches on top of left shoulder 3-4? length brown.”
4. According to the doctor (P.W. 11) injury No. 1 was the fatal injury causing perforation of the lung. P.W. 11 has also opined that the said injury is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the present is a case of single injury and the other injuries being on non-vital parts of the body of the deceased the offence of murder under Section 300 IPC is not made out so as to warrant the conviction under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel has also tried to contend that the accused and the deceased were known to each other; in fact, they were friends. It is also contended that as a result of the enmity that the accused had entertained towards the deceased on account of the failed marriage of the deceased and the sister of the accused, all that can be attributed is an intention to teach the deceased a lesson and certainly not to cause the offence of murder or even to cause a bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State by referring to the materials on record has pointed to the strained relations between the accused appellant and the deceased and the fact that the accused had specifically gone to the dispensary to which place the deceased had visited for consulting the doctor. Learned counsel has also stressed on the medical opinion that the injury no. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.
7. Having considered the rival contentions we are of the view that no fault can be found with the views taken by the learned trial Court and the High Court that the accused should be held liable for the offence of murder. Injury No. 1 by its very description, though caused on the back of the deceased, was inflicted with sufficient force to penetrate and reach the lung and even to perforate the said organ. In fact, the doctor (P.W. 11) in his deposition had clearly stated that the injury, notwithstanding its size, was cavity deep. The evidence of Mumtaj Bilal Tumake (P.W. 3) which we have perused would clearly indicate that in the course of the attack the accused had freely assaulted the deceased with the sharp pointed weapon which has been described by P.W. 3 to resemble a dagger. The deceased being an able-bodied young man must be understood to have tried his best to resist the assault on him by a dangerous weapon which could be a reasonable explanation for the injuries suffered by the deceased on the non-vital organs.
8. The above materials, if properly construed, in our considered view, can give rise to an irresistible conclusion that the present is a case which would fall within the third category contemplated under Section 300 IPC which would make the accused appellant culpable for the offence under Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC.
9. We will, therefore, have no occasion to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 962/2012
Imtiyaz A. Rahiman Inamdar _________________________ Appellant
v.
The State of Maharashtra ___________________________ Respondent
(IA 35376/2018 [APPLICATION FOR BAIL])
Date: 03-04-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv.
Mr. K. N. Rai, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
10. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
