Sudam Prabhakar Achat vs The State Of Maharashtra

2025 INSC 378 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2024

SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHAT …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and

order dated 10th August 2021, passed by the Division Bench

of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal

Appeal No. 88 of 2013, whereby the High Court dismissed

the appeal filed by the Appellant (Accused No.2) thereby

affirming the judgment and order dated 5th December 2012

rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Malegaon,

District Nashik (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in

Sessions Case No.76 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.03.21 16:16:35 IST

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine Reason:

1

of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for

two months. The appellant was also convicted under Section

324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine

of Rs.500/-, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for

one month.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal

are as under:

2.1 The case of the prosecution is that Bapu Motiram Achat

(complainant), Motiram Deoram Achat (deceased), Sudam

Prabhakar Achat (appellant herein) and Prabhat Deoram

Achat (co-accused) are all residents of Sitane, Taluka

Malegaon, District Nashik. The deceased and the co-accused

were brothers. Their agricultural fields were situated

adjacent to each other with a common boundary and a

common well. Further, the complainant is the son of the

deceased and the appellant is the son of the co-accused.

2.2 On 15th July 2009, when the complainant had gone to

his field, the appellant hurled abuses at the complainant

with respect to the use of common boundary (Bundh) to

operate the electric pump on the well. The complainant

2 returned home and narrated the incident to his parents.

Thereafter, the complainant and his parents went to the field

at 12:00 Noon and asked the appellant an explanation as to

why he was obstructing the complainant. Upon such

confrontation, the appellant and the co-accused became

aggressive. The co-accused armed with an axe and the

appellant armed with a stick assaulted the deceased and the

complainant.

2.3 The complainant and the deceased both sustained

injuries. The people working in the nearby field namely,

Chhagan Krishna Achat (PW-1), Krishna Deoram Achat and

mother of the complainant i.e. Sojabai (PW-7), separated and

took the complainant and the deceased to the Government

Hospital, Malegaon. The report of the complainant was

recorded at 4:15 PM and Crime Case No.171 of 2009 was

registered under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of the IPC. The deceased was thereafter shifted to

Government Hospital, Dhule. However, he succumbed to

injuries on the same night and Section 302 of the IPC was

added.

3 2.4 The Investigating Officer, Mahindra Ahire (for short,

“IO”) prepared a spot panchnama (Exhibit 26). The appellant

was arrested on the next day i.e., 16th July 2009. Further,

inquest panchnama (Exhibit 20) was drawn, clothes of the

deceased were seized under panchnama (Exhibit 21), post-

mortem was carried out and the report (Exhibit 15) was

prepared. The co-accused in police custody, gave a

memorandum statement (Exhibit 11) which resulted in the

recovery of the axe and stick (Exhibit 12). At the request of

the IO, evidence of eye-witnesses were recorded under

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”) by the Judicial Magistrate.

2.5 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was

filed by the IO in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, FC,

Malegaon and was registered as R.C.C. No.578 of 2009. Since

the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was

committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed

charges against the appellant and co-accused. The charges

were read over and explained to both of them to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was

that of total denial and false implication in the present crime

4 and that the deceased slipped while he was in the field

because of the tin-sheet of the tin-shed and sustained

injuries.

2.6 To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the

prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited nine

documents. The accused persons did not examine any of the

prosecution witnesses or any witness in support of their

defence.

2.7 At the end of trial, the trial court convicted the

appellant and the co-accused as aforesaid.

2.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and the co-

accused preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court

challenging the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence awarded by the trial court. The High Court vide the

impugned final judgment and order dismissed the appeal.

2.9 Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was

filed, in which notice was issued limited to the question as to

whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be

converted into Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.

Subsequently, by an order dated 2nd February 2024, leave

was granted.

5

3. We have heard Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms.

Rukmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent-State.

4. Ms. Matwankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant submits that the prosecution relies only on the

eye witnesses who are the relatives of the deceased. It is

submitted that the relatives of the deceased being interested

witnesses, the conviction only on the basis of their testimony

would not be sustainable in law. She therefore submitted

that the conviction is not sustainable and the appeal

deserves to be allowed.

5. Ms. Matwankar, in the alternative, submits that, from

the evidence on record, it is clear that the offence would not

come under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and at the most,

it would come under Part I or II of Section 304 of IPC.

6. Per contra, Ms. Bobde, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State submits that both the courts below

concurrently, on the basis of the perusal of the evidence,

found the accused guilty of the offence charged with. She

submits that, in view of the concurrent findings of fact, no

6 interference is warranted in the present appeal.

7. From the perusal of the Post-Mortem Report

(Exhibit-15) and the evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-4),

we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding that

the death of the deceased is homicidal. We also do not find

any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that

it is the appellant along with the co-accused who have

caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.

8. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant and

the co-accused are liable for the death of the deceased, we

will have to now examine whether the prosecution has

proved its case that the offence committed by the appellant

would come under the ambit of Section 302 IPC or it can be

altered into a lesser offence.

9. No doubt that all the witnesses are related to the

deceased. As a matter of fact, the deceased and the

complainant on the one hand and the accused persons on

the other hand are also closely related to each other

inasmuch they are first cousins. It is however a settled

position of law that merely because the witnesses are

relatives of the deceased and as such are interested

7 witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their

testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of

such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution

and circumspection.

10. A perusal of the evidence of Chhagan Krishna Achat

(PW-1) who is the nephew of the deceased would reveal that

the fields of the accused persons and the deceased are

adjoining each other. His testimony would further reveal that

when he returned to the field on the date of the incident, he

saw that there was a quarrel going on between the accused

persons and the deceased. His testimony would further

reveal that the co-accused Prabhakar was assaulting the

deceased with the blunt side of the axe and the appellant

was armed with a stick and he assaulted the deceased with

the said stick. It is to be noted that Motiram died when he

was taken to the Government Hospital, Dhule. The other

injured person Bapu Motiram succumbed to injury about a

month after the date of incident.

11. A perusal of evidence of PW-1 would reveal that the

deceased was standing on the bundh which was only 15-20

feet on the northern side of the house of the co-accused. To

8 the same effect is the evidence of the other eye witnesses.

12. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself, it

is clear that the place of incident is near the house of

accused persons. The possibility of a quarrel taking place on

account of previous enmity between the accused persons and

the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the

moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting

the deceased cannot be ruled out. It can further be seen that

the weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe.

These tools are easily available in any agricultural field. It

therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation.

13. It is further to be noted that the appellant is alleged to

have used the stick whereas the co-accused is said to have

used the blunt side of the axe. If their intention was to kill

the deceased, there was no reason as to why the co-accused

would not have used the sharp side of the axe. The nature of

injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would

also not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage

or acted in a cruel manner.

14. In that view of the matter, we find that the present case

would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the

9 appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of

Section 300 of IPC. It is further to be noted that the appellant

has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months.

15. We are therefore inclined to partly allow the appeal. In

the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeal is partly allowed;

(ii) The conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted to

Part I of Section 304 IPC;

(iii) The appellant is sentenced to the period already

undergone; and

(iv) The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if

not required in any other case.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

.............................................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 21, 2025.

10