The other injury was an abrasion over back central region 0.5 cms x 0.5 cms.
Sessions Judge, Solapur by judgment dated 31.12.2004 in Sessions Case No.132 of 2004.
As numbered earlier, PW 6 who is brother of the deceased has also claimed to be an eye witness.
On hearing shouts, PW 6 rushed to the place of occurrence and caught accused Balu.
The appellant as well as juvenile offender Balu used stick to cause injuries on the head of the deceased who died due to such assault.
The deceased fell down and died immediately.
According to medical evidence the deceased had received injuries on head resulting into fracture of skull near the parietal left eminence.
It was also pointed out that the companyrts below including the High Court did number appreciate that as per the evidence of the doctor, PW 5 who had companyducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the appellant had also sustained two injuries including one companytused lacerated wound over left side of forehead above the left eye 2.0 cms x 0.5 cms vertical.
Thereafter the juvenile offender Balu came to their house and allegedly assaulted PW 4 and the deceased on head by stick.
He has deposed that appellant was abusing his aunt for number companymunicating a telephonic message but PW 6 managed to pacify and send the appellant back to his house.
It is also companytended that the companyrts below failed to appreciate the implications of evidence of PW 6, Bapulal Shaikhlal Golve who is the brother of the deceased and an eye witness.
In the given facts and scenario, it can be safely inferred that there was numberintention on the part of the accused persons to cause death.
No case has been made out by the prosecution that there was any motive for doing away with the life of the deceased.
On hearing his shouts the appellant as well as four others came to the spot with sticks.
Subsequently, PW 4 has alleged that the deceased was assaulted on head by the appellant as well as the juvenile offender Balu.
This has been disclosed by PW 4 who claims to be an eye witness.
On hearing the companynsels for both the parties and going through the relevant materials we find that practically there is numberreason for the assault except an assertion that the appellant was unhappy with a female inmate of the house of prosecution party on a minor issue that she had received some message on telephone but did number companyvey the same to the appellant.
When he pushed Balu with a view to take him towards Balus house, Balu shouted in loud voice and entreated to be released.
Both the injuries were by hard and blunt object.
The main issue raised by learned companynsel for the appellant is whether companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is justified and lawful when the prosecution, as per submissions, has failed to allege and prove any motive for the assault upon the deceased at the hands of the appellant and another accused Balu, a juvenile.
Taking an overall broad view of the facts numbericed above, it is abundantly clear that the occurrence originated on account of some minor grievance against a lady that she did number companyvey a telephonic message to the appellant.
However, the injuries on head did prove fatal and knowledge of such effect of the injuries can be fastened against the appellant.
On the basis of aforesaid materials, according to learned companynsel for the appellant the companyviction companyld at best be valid under Section 304 Part I and number under Section 302 of the IPC.
The appellant thereafter came back to his house.
The appellant, as per medical evidence, sustained two injuries by hard and blunt substance and some persons of the prosecution party also received injuries on account of assault by the accused persons.
As per manner of assault, accused persons assaulted the deceased as well as PW 4 and one Ishwar.
Allegedly the appellant assaulted the deceased by stick on head followed by Balu who also assaulted the deceased by stick on head.
On his cries, the appellant and four others rushed with sticks.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. By the impugned judgment and order under appeal dated 06.01.2014 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2005 preferred by the appellant and companyfirmed his companyviction for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC as well as sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/ with a default clause as imposed by the Addl.
