Bombay High Court: The convict had challenged the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur (“Trial Court”), dated 04-03-2020, convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 3071 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”); and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default of which, was to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year. Further, the Trial Court also convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 5042 of IPC, for which he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The single-Judge Bench of Sarang V. Kotwal*, J., noted the evidence of the prosecution and concluded that the convict did not intend to murder the victim, and therefore, changed his conviction to Section 3083 of IPC. Considering the sentence period of five and a half years already served by the convict, the Court ordered his release.
Background
The prosecution’s case was that the convict was residing with his wife (“victim”) and was an alcoholic and used to beat and harass her. On 02-08-2015, there was a quarrel between the convict and the victim, when he forcibly poured rat poison in her mouth. She was taken to the hospital and was treated for four days. A poison bottle was evidenced, and medical samples were taken from the victim.
Court’s analysis and decision
Based on the medical reports that concluded that the poison found in the bottle was the same as that found in the stomach wash of the victim, the Court believed that the victim was in fact poisoned.
However, the question before the Court remained whether the convict had committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The Court noted that the quarrel broke out at 9 AM, and during the quarrel, the convict had forcibly subjected the victim to poison. Therefore, the convict had not premeditated, pre-planned, or designed the administering of poison to the victim. Hence, if this act of his had caused the death of the victim, it would not have amounted to murder, but to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Further, the Court noted that the victim had suffered from poisoning and was treated at a hospital for four days, and the convict had the full opportunity to cause further damage, since he had taken her to the hospital with others, but he did not do so. Therefore, the Court viewed that the convict did not intend to murder the victim. Hence, the Court opined that the offence would fall within the meaning of Section 308 of IPC instead, that is-attempt to commit culpable homicide. At this juncture, the Court held that the conviction and sentence of the convict under Section 307 of IPC will have to be set aside.
The convict had been in custody for five and a half years and pointing towards the maximum sentence imposable under Section 308 (which is seven years), he submitted that the sentence undergone would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Court however, maintained the convict’s conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 504 of IPC.
Lastly, considering the convict’s submission regarding the sentence period already served , which was directed to run concurrently for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of IPC, the Court ordered the release of the convict.
[Namdeo Ramchandra Chormule v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2021, decided on 25-07-2024]
*Judgment pronounced by: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Abhishek R. Avachat, Siddhant H. Deshpande, Mahesh Sadaphal, Advocates
For the respondent: Ranjana D. Humane, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 109 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)