Mumbai: Twenty-six years after a man was found guilty of murder, the Bombay High Court has set aside his conviction and charged him with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
A Division Bench of Justice R.M. Savant and Justice Sadhana Jadhav was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Parshuram Kamble from Yerwada jail.
The incident had occurred on June 13, 1991, when Bapu Chavan, a resident of Yashodhara Chawl at Ghatkopar (East), was chatting with his wife Sharda outside his house. Suddenly, Kamble who was living next doors, started abusing Ms. Sharda as she had allegedly told the neighbours that Mr. Kamble possessed a knife. Though Mr. Chavan sent Ms. Sharda inside, the abusing continued.
Finally, when Ms. Sharda asked Mr. Kamble why he was abusing so much, he got a knife from his house and stabbed her below the ribs on the right side.
Meanwhile, one Surekha threw a tava on Mr. Kamble. Mr. Kamble assaulted Ms. Surekha as well. Meanwhile, Ms. Sharda was taken to hospital, where she was declared brought dead.
Mr. Chavan registered a complaint with the Pant Nagar police and Mr. Kamble was arrested. He was charged with Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 352 (punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation) of the Indian Penal Code. A charge sheet was filed against Mr. Kamble on September 27, 1991. He was convicted for murder.
The advocate, appearing for Mr. Kamble, said, “There was no enmity between the accused and the woman, and that there was no motive behind the stabbing.” It was also submitted that the case was covered by the part II of Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC.
The court said, “It is required to be noted that the accused and the victim were neighbours; there was no motive alleged against the accused; the act of the accused of going to his hut and coming back with a knife and stabbing the woman can be attributed to a fit of rage. It cannot be said that the accused had any intention to kill the woman.”
The court, therefore, acquitted him for murder and instead convicted him under Section 304 (II) of the IPC. He was sentenced for the period of imprisonment he had already undergone.