Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on November 20, 2024, altered the conviction of a man from the offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, noting that the incident was caused by an altercation, which had taken place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, and no motive had come on record as to why the accused wanted to commit the murder.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan granted the appellant Sunny alias Santosh Dharmu Bhonsale the benefit of doubt and sentenced him to the period of 9 years of imprisonment undergone by him, observing it would subserve the ends of justice.

The appeal arose out of a Bombay High Court's judgment of August 5, 2020, which confirmed the Satara trial court's decision holding the appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to life term.

According to the prosecution, on March 21, 2014, Sunita Bhosale and her husband Gopal Bhosale went to the house of Rajendra Bhosale, who had gone to answer nature's call. The appellant also came to the house and started abusing Chayya, the wife of Rajendra on account of a loan taken by them. Gopal tried to pacify the appellant but this irked him so much so that he assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick which resulted in his death.

The appellant's counsel contended there were material contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of witnesses. He also claimed there were various contradictions in the FIR on one hand and the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses. He submitted that the judgment and order of conviction were not at all sustainable in law.

In the alternative, he also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses showed that the incident was an outcome of a sudden and grave provocation in a quarrel that took place between the deceased and the appellant. In any event, the conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be sustainable and would have to be altered to a lesser offence, he said.

Defending the concurrent judgments, the state counsel said that the testimonies of all three eyewitnesses were consistent and the circumstantial evidence also pointed towards the guilt of the appellant.

Taking into consideration the evidence of Rajendra Bhosale and Sunita Bhosale, the bench said, "We do not find any error in the finding of the trial court and the High Court that it is the present appellant who assaulted the deceased due to which the death of the deceased has occurred".

Examining the question of whether the appellant could be convicted of lesser offence, the bench considered the evidence of eye witnesses to hold that it was clear that the deceased had nothing to do with the incident and no motive had come on record as to why the appellant wanted to commit the murder of the deceased.

"The evidence of the eyewitnesses also does not show that the appellant had come with any weapon. On the contrary, the medical evidence would show that the injuries caused are with the bamboo stick, which is commonly available in a village. The possibility of the deceased following the appellant and an altercation taking place between them and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion the appellant assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out," the bench said.

The court thus held the prosecution had utterly failed to prove any case of premeditation.

On the contrary, the case as put forth by the prosecution was about the appellant coming to the house of Rajendra Bhosale, abusing him and his wife Chayya, and the weapon used was a bamboo stick which is commonly available anywhere in the village, it noted.

"The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased would also not show that the appellant had taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner," the bench said.

The court accordingly partly allowed the appeal and altered the appellant's conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I, IPC, and sentenced him to the period already served by him.

Case Title: Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhonsale Vs The State of Maharashtra