Subhash Gangadhar Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 1576 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.9264 of 2018)

SUBHASH GANGADHAR JADHAV Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) Leave granted.

(2) This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 5th

March, 2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in

Criminal Appeal NO.1252 of 2007 in and by which the High Court

affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section

302 I.P.C. and sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo life

imprisonment.

(3) By order dated 22nd October, 2018, this Court issued notice

limited to the nature of offence and the quantum of punishment.

Case of the prosecution is that the deceased-Kanhu Rao and the Signature Not Verified

appellant-accused, Subhash Gangadhar Jadhav, were employees of Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.12.12 16:37:00 IST Reason:

Symboisis Sampro Syntheline Company at MIDC, Village Gonde. At

the night of 2nd May, 2005, while the accused-Subhash Gangadhar 2

Jadhav was working in the night shift, the deceased-Kanhu Rao

served the tea to those working in the night shift and at that

time there was exchange of hot words between the appellant-

accused and the deceased. During which time, the appellant-

accused inflicted injuries on the deceased-Kanhu Rao with

wooden rod of the axe. The appellant-inflicted four to five

injuries on the person of the deceased due to which the

deceased-Kanhu Rao died on the spot.

(4) We have heard Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant and Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-State, and also perused the

impugned judgment and the evidence/materials on record.

(5) The Contention of learned counsel for the appellant-

accused is that there was no premeditation on the part of the

appellant and while the appellant was working in the night

shift of the fateful day, the deceased-Kanhu Rao served the tea

to the appellant and also to others and that while there was

exchange of words between them, the appellant has inflicted

injuries upon the deceased-Kanhu Rao all of a sudden. It was

submitted that there was no premeditation or intention of

committing the murder of the deceased-Kanhu Rao by the

appellant.

(6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

also that there was no premeditation of the appellant-accused

in inflicting injuries on the deceased-Kanhu Rao, the

conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 I.P.C. is 3

modified to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and the sentence awarded

to the appellant-accused is reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

(7) The appeal is partly allowed and the appellant-accused is

ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other

case.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (INDIRA BANERJEE) NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 7, 2018.