Shailesh alias Shailendra vs State of Maharashtra

Play game in the spirit of game. So said Nehru. But when the spirit is lost in the game, even life is lost. This is what happened in the present case, when the friendly game of cricket became deadly game. Uday who was umpire in the friendly cricket match between Jai Bajrang v. Jai Bharat, and lost his life.

The accused appellant Shailesh alias Shailendra was put up for trial in Sessions Case No. 165 of 1988 State of Maharashtra v. Shailesh alias Shailendra for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC for having committed the murder of Uday on 27-12-1987 during the cricket match played between the two teams, namely, Jai Bajrang and Jai Bharat. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide his judgment dated 30-1-1991 in the said Sessions Case though acquitted the accused - appellant for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted him for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for 10 days and hence the appeal by the accused - appellant.

On 27-12-1987 a report was lodged by Vasant Pimple at Police Station Sakkardara, Sub-Division Ganeshpeth, Nagpur that his son Uday, aged 21 years was residing with him and he used to play the cricket always. On 27-12-1987 there was a cricket match between the teams of Subhedar Layout (Jai Bharat Team) and Chakradhar Nagar (Jai Bajrang Team) and his son Uday and one more were umpires of these teams. Both the teams started playing at 1.00 p.m. and the match was of 60 overs each. At that time the team from the Subhedar Layout was playing and the team from Chakradhar Nagar was bowling. At that time his son declared a ball as "no ball". Thereupon the accused appellant Shailendra resisted that it was not "no ball". Over this an altercation took place between them at 2.45 p.m. (after-noon). The accused-appellant struck the stump on the right side head of his son and as a result of which blood was oozing out through the same and a severe injury was caused there. He was, thereupon admitted to the Medical College. On this report made by Vasant Pimple (PW 1) the first information report (Exh. 26) was registered. Unfortunately Uday Pimple died on 30-12-1987. The case was converted into u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused - appellant.

The postmortem report conducted on the body of the deceased Uday revealed the following injuries in column 17 :

The investigating officer prepared the inquest panchanama (Exh. 19), spot panchanama (Exh. 14) seized certain articles vide seizure-member (Exh. 17 and Exh. 18). One faint yellowish painted wooden stump was seized vide Exh. 17 and the clothes were sent for chemical analysis by the investigating officer and the report of Chemical Analyser is Exh. 16. The investigating officer completed the investigation and chargesheeted the accused for an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed for trial to the Court of 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur who framed the charge against the accused to the effect that the accused on 27-12-1987 at about 2.45 p.m. at Old Subhedar Layout, Chakradhar Nagar Ground at Nagpur committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Uday Vasantrao Pimple by means of wooden stump and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and his trial commenced. The prosecution examined Vasant Balwant Pimple, father of the deceased (PW. 1), Vinod Vilasrao Surve (PW. 2), Ravindra Deorao Dorkhande (PW. 3), Dr. Vijay Vishnu Wase (PW. 4), Tushar Ashokrao Manjule (PW. 5), Satyanarayan Girdharilal Pathak, ASI (PW. 6) and Ramkrishna Suryabhan Marge, PSI (PW. 7). Various documents were exhibited and proved by the prosecution.

The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.PC and he denied having committed any offence and also examined Ashok Bhaurao Mahalle (DW. 1).

The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted the accused for the offence u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for 2 years and further to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further, RI for 10 days, and aggrieved by that the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that the injury by stump was caused by the accused - appellant in his private defence and therefore the accused could not be held guilty of any offence. Her contention is that the accused had no criminal intention to cause the death of the deceased Uday and while protecting him in exercise of his right of private defence the accused-appellant gave the blow by stump on the head of the deceased Uday. It was an accidental death and the accused could not be convicted. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was duly established that the accused-appellant had neither any intention to cause the death of Uday, nor he had any knowledge that his act could cause the death. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the accused appellant, the accused appellant could be held guilty for the offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused appellant is the only son of his parents and after completing his graduation, he is prosecuting the studies of Law and therefore the accused appellant deserves to be accorded the benefit of probation.

The learned APP has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and on the self-same reasoning has contended that the trial Court was right in convicting the accused appellant for the offence u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to the accused is very lenient and therefore no interference is called for in the judgment impugned in this appeal.

Unfortunate though it is that Uday died while he was performing the role of umpire, but the undisputed fact is that the incident occurred when the two teams were playing the cricket. PW. 2 Vinod who was one of the players playing from the side of Jai Bharat Cricket Team, in his deposition before the Court has stated that the accused appellant Shailesh was playing from the side of his opponent team, namely, Jai Bajrang Cricket Team. According to him, he (PW. 2 Vinod) was the captain of his team and Ashok Mahalle (DW. 1) was captain of Jai Bajrang team. The deceased Uday was an umpire at that time and Tushar Manjule was other umpire. Jai Bharat team was batting and the players were Deepak Bangale and Prashant Choudhari. Ashok Mahalle (DW. 1) was bowling and the deceased Uday was leg umpire. Ashok Mahalle was bowling and Deepak was facing him. Uday declared the said bowl as ''no ball''. This decision was not accepted by the Jai Bajrang team. The accused appellant Shailesh was wicket keeper and there was an altercation between the umpire Uday (decased) and Ashok Mahalle (DW. 1). He was standing outside the ground. Thereafter there was altercation between the accused Shailesh and the deceased Uday. The accused appellant lifted his stump and hit it on the head of deceased Uday and after that the accused appellant left the spot. He gave one blow. Uday was carried to the hospital and he died in the hospital. In his cross examination he has admitted that the distance in between him and Uday was 90 yards. He has admitted that he was not on the spot. He denied the suggestion that the deceased Uday had declared four consecutive bowls as ''no balls''. PW. 3 Ravindra in his testimony before the court has testified that on 27-12-1987 he was witnessing the match on the ground. Uday was umpire and Ashok Mahalle (DW. 1) was bowling. After bowling the ball there was discussion in between the bowler and the deceased Uday, Umpire and all other players had gathered there. The accused was the wicket keeper at that time. He came there with the stump and gave its blow on the head of Uday. Uday fell down and was taken to the hospital. In his cross examination he had denied the suggestion that he had not seen the incident. He has further admitted in his cross examination that Ashok Mahalle (D.W. 1) and the accused appellant opposed the decision of Uday.

From the statements of PW. 2 Vinod and PW. 3 Ravindra, it is established that in the cricket match on one bowl having been declared as "no ball" the altercation took place and the accused appellant gave a blow by stump on the head of uday. The injury caused by the accused Shailesh on the head of Uday was one. The post-mortem report reveals that the injury No. 1 was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. It is also opinion of the doctor vide Exh. 23 that the said injury No. 1 in the postmortem report could have been caused by the stump.

DW. 1 Ashok, who was captain of Jai Bajrang team, in his deposition before the Court, has deposed that he was bowling and the umpire Uday declared four bowls as ''no balls''. They objected to his decision and asked for change of umpire ship and the accused appellant also objected for his umpire ship, but the umpire Uday abused the accused. Both the batsmen came to the umpire Uday and the two batsmen and Uday rushed towards the accused, and the accused then lifted the stump and waved it in the air, and to protect himself gave a blow to the umpire Uday (deceased).

The trial Court has considered in the facts and circumstances that the accused appellant has not proved his right of defence after examining it in detail and minutely. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the defence version that he used the stump to protect his life cannot be believed because there was not a single injury on the person of the accused. The trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of DW. 1 Ashok and therefore negatived the defence version that he had not exceeded his right or private defence or that there was imminent danger to his life and that resulted in the blow by stump on the head of deceased Uday by the accused Shailesh. I find myself in agreement with the reasoning of the trial Court that the defence has not been able to prove the right of defence and this argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant has no force and is negatived.

The principal question in the present appeal is that whether in the facts and circumstances the incident took place and the fact that the accused appellant gave a blow of stump on the head of the deceased Uday as a result of which he died, can it be said that such an act of accused Shailesh amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In other words, the question is whether for the death of Uday can it be said that the accused appellant Shailesh had knowledge that his act of blowing the stump on the head of Uday would cause his death. It is undisputed and rather it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was the wicket keeper of one of the teams which was playing the cricket match in which Uday was umpire. On a bowl which, according to the umpire, was ''no ball'' the alternation ensued between the bowler and the umpire Uday (deceased). The accused appellant Shailesh was not satisfied with the call of that bowl as ''no ball'' by the Umpire and in an un-spirited manner and unbecoming of a player gave one blow of stump on the head of the umpire Uday, who died. The accused was 20 years old at that time and so were the other boys as well as the umpires, and from the evidence which has come on record and the injuries sustained by deceased Uday, it cannot be said that the accused appellant had any knowledge that his act of giving one stump blow on the head of Uday would cause his death or was likely to cause his death. From the injuries caused by the accused-appellant on the head of Uday, it cannot be said or inferred or concluded that the accused had any knowledge that such injury was likely to cause the death of the deceased Uday. Uday died after three days. The injury was one. The length and measurement of injury also does not lead to the conclusion that the accused appellant by blowing the stump on the head of Uday without any intention to cause death had knowledge that it was likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury, which was likely to cause the death. At best it can be said that he caused the grievous hurt voluntarily, which was punishable u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code because the injury was caused by the stump i.e. blunt weapon object.

The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the conviction of the accused u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused appellant can be held guilty of the offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur vide his judgment dated 30-1-1991 in Sessions Case No. 165 of 1988 State of Maharashtra v. Shailesh alias Shailendra is set aside. However, the accused appellant is held guilty for the offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer RI for one year. Since at the time of occurrence of incident the accused was 20 years old and considering the manner and circumstances under which the incident has taken place, the fact that after the date of incident the accused appellant has already completed his graduation and is prosecuting his study for Law and looking to the age, character and antecedents and the fact that there is no adverse report against him, in my view, instead of sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment as aforesaid, interest of justice would be met if the accused is accorded the benefit of probation u/s 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and released on probation on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and one surety of like amount to the effect that he would appear and serve out whenever called upon during such period and in the mean time would keep peace and good behaviour. Order accordingly.

Appeal partly allowed.