The Bombay High Court has confirmed a lower court order awarding life imprisonment to a 78-year-old man for killing his son for not paying him maintenance.
Bhimsha Gurusidha Chendke, a convict lodged in Yerwada prison in Pune, had filed an appeal in the high court challenging a sessions court order awarding him life term for killing his son on May 16, 2011 with an axe in Kalappawadi village in Solapur district.
"In our opinion, the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of IPC is maintained and the appeal is dismissed," said justices V K Tahilramani and B P Colabawalla in their judgement on April 21.
Also Read
The judges said that looking at the nature of injuries that were inflicted on the deceased by the appellant, we are clearly of the view that Chendke had taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner.
"There were as many as five deep chop wounds (were) found on the body of the deceased - Shivputra. Considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the reliance placed on the Exception 4 to section 300 of IPC is wholly misplaced and would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case," the judges said.
The bench was of the view that the deceased, Shivputra, was not armed and it is nobody's case that he had at any time physically assaulted the appellant. "In the present case, we are unable to agree with submission of the defence lawyer that the case would fall within Exception 4 of section 300 of IPC (which covers acts done in a sudden fight).
Noting that in order to bring the case within the Exception 4 to section 300 of IPC all ingredients mentioned in it must be found, the HC said the word 'fight' appearing in Exception 4 is not defined in the IPC.
"It takes two or more persons to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for passion to cool down. Exception 4 further stipulates that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the offender should not have taken undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner," the judges observed.
The bench relied upon the version of two neighbours of the appellant who had witnessed the murder. The court noted that the blood stains found on the axe belonged to the same group of blood which was traced on the clothes of the accused.
