Hiraman Hingane Vs. State of Maharashtra  INSC 913 (9 December 1997)
NANAVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.