http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PRAKASH HIRAMAN HINGANE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/12/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Nanavati,J.      The appellant  was tried  for committing  murder of one Ashok on 12.4.1986 at 6.30 a.m. The Trial Court believed the prosecution witnesses  and held that in all 10 injuries were caused by  the accused  with a  knife and that three or four injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his  death. It,  however, held that as the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any motive to cause death of  Ashok, it  would not  be  proper  to  convict  the appellant under  Section 302  IPC. So it convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC.      The appellant  challenged his  conviction by  filing an appeal to  the High  Court. The  State also  filed an appeal against the  acquittal under appeal against the acquittal of the  appellant   under  Section  302  IPC.  The  High  Court dismissed the  appellant’s appeal  and  allowed  the  appeal filed by the State and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.  The appellant  has, therefore,  filed this  appeal challenging the judgment and passed by the High Court.      Both the  courts have believed the evidence of PW1, who was himself  an eye-witness  and PWs  3 and  4. The  learned counsel  was   not  able  to  point  out  any  flaw  in  the appreciation of  evidence by  the High  Court. We therefore, proceed on the basis that the finding that their evidence is trustworthy and correct. If their evidence is believed, then it has  to be  held that  the finding recorded by the courts below regarding  causing of  injuries by  the accused to the deceased is  also proper. The appellant had given as many as 10 blows  with a  knife to  the deceased  who  was  unarmed. Merely because  there was some grappling between the accused and the deceased, possibly because the deceased tried to see that the  blows did  not hit him, it cannot be said that the accused was  entitled to  give those blows in exercise right of private  defence of  was entitled to any other exception. As the  injuries caused  by the accused to the deceased were intentional and  they were  found to  be sufficient  in  the ordinary course  of nature to cause death, the appellant was rightly held  guilty under  Section 302  IPC. The High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

was, therefore,  justified in altering the Conviction of the appellant from  under Section 304 Part II IPC to Section 302 IPC. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.