Supreme Court - Daily OrdersImtiyaz A. Rahiman Inamdar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 April, 2018Bench:Ranjan Gogoi,R. Banumathi1


                                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S) 962 of 2012

                         IMTIYAZ A. RAHIMAN
                         INAMDAR                        ...APPELLANT(S)

                                             VERSUS

                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...RESPONDENT(S)

                                               ORDER1.      Though      the   matter   was   listed   for

                         consideration of the application for bail

                         filed by the appellant, with the consent of

                         the parties we have heard the main Criminal

                         Appeal on merits.2.      This appeal by the accused who is

                         in jail seeks to challenge the order of the

                         High Court of Bombay dated 30th November,

                         2011 by which the conviction of the accused

                         appellant   underSection    302IPC   and   the

                         sentence of imprisonment for life has been

                         affirmed by the High Court.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVINOD LAKHINADate: 2018.04.0518:10:59 ISTReason:23.          We have considered the prosecution

case   and    the   evidence   of    the    witnesses,

particularly,       eye-witness     P.W.3    –   Mumtaj

Bilal Tumake. We have also considered the

postmortem report of Dr. Ashok Kanki (P.W.11) who had described the injuries found on

the deceased as follows:“1)     Stab injury on the back
       near lateral margin of left
       scapula    at  6th  intercostals
       space.   1–¼” x ½” cavity deep,
       elliptical in shape with clean
       margins.2)      Incised wound on lateral
       aspect of left forearm, 2” x 1”,
       skin deep, elliptical in shape
       with clean margins.3)     Incised wound on lateral
       aspect of left thigh about knee,
       2”x¾”.4)      Incised wound  at Rt.Midclavicular region ½” x ½”
       skin deep.5)      Incised  wound   at  Rt.Axilla, anterior aspect, ½” x ¼”
       skin deep.6)       Incised    wound     on     left3buttock 1-½” x ¾ x ¾”.

       7)      Two scratches on top of
       left    shoulder   3-4”   length
       brown.”4.        According to the doctor (P.W. 11)

injury No.1 was the fatal injury causing

perforation of the lung.        P.W. 11 has also

opined that the said injury is sufficient

in the ordinary course to cause death.5.        Learned counsel for the appellant

has vehemently contended that the present

is a case of single injury and the other

injuries being on non-vital parts of the

body of the deceased the offence of murder

underSection 300IPC is not made out so as

to warrant the conviction underSection 302IPC.     Learned    counsel   has   also   tried   to

contend that the accused and the deceased

were   known   to   each   other;   in   fact,   they

were friends. It is also contended that as

a result of the enmity that the accused had

entertained towards the deceased on account4of the failed marriage of the deceased and

the sister of the accused, all that can be

attributed         is    an    intention       to    teach    the

deceased       a    lesson       and    certainly      not     to

cause    the       offence      of     murder   or    even     to

cause a bodily injury which is sufficient

in the ordinary course to cause death.6.         On      the        other    hand,    the    learned

counsel for the State by referring to the

materials       on       record       has   pointed    to     the

strained       relations          between       the    accused

appellant       and      the    deceased       and    the    fact

that the accused had specifically gone to

the dispensary to which place the deceased

had     visited         for    consulting       the    doctor.

Learned counsel has also stressed on the

medical opinion that the injury no.1 was

sufficient in the ordinary course to cause

death.7.         Having             considered        the         rival

contentions         we    are     of    the    view   that     no5fault can be found with the views taken by

the learned trial Court and the High Court

that the accused should be held liable for

the offence of murder.           Injury No.1 by its

very description, though caused on the back

of   the      deceased,     was      inflicted          with

sufficient force to penetrate and reach the

lung and even to perforate the said organ.

In   fact,     the    doctor     (P.W.     11)     in       his

deposition      had    clearly      stated       that       the

injury,      notwithstanding        its      size,          was

cavity deep.         The evidence of Mumtaj Bilal

Tumake (P.W. 3) which we have perused would

clearly indicate that in the course of the

attack the accused had freely assaulted the

deceased      with    the   sharp     pointed       weapon

which   has    been     described     by     P.W.       3    to

resemble a dagger.          The deceased being an

able-bodied young man must be understood to

have tried his best to resist the assault

on him by a dangerous weapon which could be6a reasonable explanation for the injuries

suffered by the deceased on the non-vital

organs.8.         The       above   materials,       if    properly

construed, in our considered view, can give

rise to an irresistible conclusion that the

present is a case which would fall within

the     third        category     contemplated            underSection     300IPC    which      would      make     the

accused appellant culpable for the offence

underSection      300IPC    punishable         underSection 302IPC.9.         We        will,      therefore,         have      no

occasion    to       interfere        with   the    impugned

judgment.        Accordingly, the conviction and

sentence        of    the    accused         appellant       is

affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.....................,J.(RANJAN GOGOI)

                                ...................,J.(R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI7APRIL 03, 20188ITEM NO.1                  COURT NO.3                  SECTION II-A

                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL    NO(S).   962/2012

IMTIYAZ A. RAHIMAN INAMDAR                                  APPELLANT(S)

                                     VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                    RESPONDENT(S)(IA 35376/2018 [APPLICATION FOR BAIL])

Date : 03-04-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Appellant(s)              Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv.Mr. K. N. Rai, AOR

For Respondent(s)
                              Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
                              Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R


                   The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed

          order.[VINOD LAKHINA]                        [ASHA SONI]
               AR-cum-PS                          BRANCH OFFICER[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]