NINAJI RAOJI BOUDHA & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

NINAJI RAOJI BOUDHA & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The evidence on record does not show that the appellants had a common intention to cause the fatal injury to the deceased. Only one fatal blow was administered but it cannot be reliably determined which accused delivered it; accordingly, the appellants could only be convicted under section 325 read with section 34...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ninaji Raoji Boudha; Appellant: Raoji Gianu Boudha; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1976
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated the 25th and 28th September, 1970 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1968 With Crl. A. No. 100 of 1968.
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction altered from section 302/34 IPC to section 325/34 IPC; sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years imposed, sentences to run concurrently.
Legal Topics
Common Intention, Culpable Homicide and Murder, Section 302 IPC, Section 325 IPC, Section 34 IPC
Criminal Law Common Intention Culpable Homicide and Murder Section 302 IPC Section 325 IPC Section 34 IPC

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ninaji Raoji Boudha

Appellant

Raoji Gianu Boudha

Appellant

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated the 25th and 28th September, 1970 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1968 With Crl. A. No. 100 of 1968.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants could be convicted under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code where there is no evidence of a common intention to cause death and no evidence as to who caused the only fatal injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence on record does not show that the appellants had a common intention to cause the fatal injury to the deceased. Only one fatal blow was administered but it cannot be reliably determined which accused delivered it; accordingly, the appellants could only be convicted under section 325 read with section 34 IPC for grievous hurt, not under section 302/34 IPC for murder.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conviction altered from section 302/34 IPC to section 325/34 IPC; sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years imposed, sentences to run concurrently.

Orders

  • Conviction altered from section 302/34 IPC to section 325/34 IPC.
  • Appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.