Bombay High Court
Sangit @ Chhotu Haridas Ramteke vs State Of Mah.Thr.Pso Wardha on 10 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10908-DB
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.563 OF 2004
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.735 OF 2004
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.563 OF 2004
Sangit @ Chhotu s/o Haridas
Ramteke, aged - 30 years, occupation:
agriculturist, r/o Borgaon-Meghe,
PS Sewagram, district Wardha,
(at present in jail). ..... Appellant.
:: V E R S U S ::
State of Maharashtra,
through PSO PS Sewagram, Wardha. ..... Respondent.
Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Counsel for the Appellant.
Shri M.J.Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.735 OF 2004
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sewagram,
district Wardha. ..... Appellant.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. Sangit @ Chhotu s/o Haridas Ramteke,
aged about 28 years.
.....2/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
2
2. Vijay s/o Haridas Ramteke,
aged about 42 years.
3. Sanjay s/o Haridas Ramteke,
aged about 37 years.
All r/o Borgaon (Meghe),
Police Station Sewagram,
district Wardha. ..... Respondents.
Shri M.J.Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Appellant/State.
Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Counsel for the Respondents.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 19/09/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10/10/2025
COMMON JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
1. Both these appeals arise out of judgment and
order dated 2.9.2004 passed by learned 1 st Ad hoc,
Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha (learned Judge of
the trial court) in Sessions Trial No.189/2002.
.....3/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
3
2. By the said judgment impugned, Sangit @
Chhotu s/o Haridas Ramteke (appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.563/2004 and respondent No.1 in Criminal
Appeal No.735/2004) is convicted under Section 304-II
of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years. He is also convicted under
Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year.
3. Criminal Appeal No.563/2004 is preferred by
accused Sangit Ramteke.
Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.735/2004 is
preferred by the State for quashing the judgment and
order impugned acquitting accused persons Sangit
Ramteke, Vijay Haridas Ramteke, and Sanjay Haridas
Ramteke of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the
IPC.
.....4/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
4
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under:
Vinod Choudhari (the informant) is resident
of village Borgaon (Meghe) and doing business of motor
rewinding. Ramesh Pyarelal Prajapati (the deceased) is
his maternal uncle. Accused persons Sangit Ramteke;
Vijay Ramteke, and Sanjay Ramteke are brothers and
also resident of the same village. There was a political
rivalry between the informant and the accused persons
on account of elections of the Panchayat Samiti and the
Zilla Parishad. In the elections, Manoj, who is younger
brother of the informant, came to be elected as Member
of the Panchayat Samiti. He has contested the election
from the National Congress. At the same time, accused
Sanjay Ramteke was also Member of the Panchayat
Samiti and accused Vijay Ramteke was Up-Sarpanch. As
per the allegations, as Manoj was member of Panchayat
.....5/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
5
Samiti, he was getting contracts from the Panchayat
Samiti and accused Vijay Ramteke was demanding
commission from him for getting the contracts. The
deceased was also working as contractor from whom
also accused Vijay Ramteke demanded Rs.5000/- as
commission which was not paid and on that account,
the dispute arose between the informant, Manoj and
accused persons. As per the allegations, accused Vijay
Ramteke and Sanjay Ramteke had threatened the
informant and his maternal uncle.
5. On 3.7.2002, the informant had gone along
with his father-in-law Prakash Prajapati to attend the
funeral ceremony of wife of Sukhlal Prajapati on his
motorcycle. After attending the said funeral, he was
returning on the motorcycle and at the relevant time,
the deceased was riding the motorcycle, whereas the
informant was pillion rider. They saw a block-yellow
.....6/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
6
colour jeep bearing registration No.MH-32-B/615
parked at Waigaon. When both were proceeding on the
motorcycle, the said passenger jeep came from behind
and gave dash to the motorcycle. Due to which, they
fell down and the deceased fell down in the middle road
and sustained grievous injuries. The informant has also
sustained the injuries in the said incident. It is alleged
that due to the political rivalry between them, accused
Sangit Ramteke driven the said passenger jeep in a rash
and negligent manner with an intention to kill them and
caused the death of the deceased. On the basis of the
said report, the police registered the offence against
accused Sangit Ramteke as well as other co-accused.
6. After registration of the crime, the
investigating officer has drawn the inquest panchanama
and spot panchanama. He has collected blood stains
from the spot of the incident by drawing the seizure
.....7/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
7
memo. He has also obtained blood samples of the
deceased as well as the informant and the accused
persons. After collecting the medical certificate of the
informant and postmortem report, he completed the
investigation and submitted chargesheet against the
accused persons. The incriminating articles were
forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer. The CA Certificate
is also included subsequently to the investigation papers.
7. As the offences under Sections 302 and 307
are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court.
Learned Judge of the trial court framed the charge vide
Exh.30. The contents of the charge are read over and
explained to the accused persons in vernacular. They
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
.....8/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
8
8. In support of the prosecution case, the
prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses, as follows:
PW Names of Witnesses Exh.
Nos. Nos.
1 Vitthal Shende Exh.20
2 Dhnyaneshwar Shende Exh.22
3 Gajanan Jadhao Exh.23
4 Sheshrao Pardake Exh.27
5 Vinod Choudhari, the informant Exh.30
6 Manoj Choudhari, the brother of the Exh.32
informant
7 Anand Shiwankar, PSI Exh.36
8 Gopalsingh Kuware Exh.48
9 Deepak Choudhari Exh.50
10 Dr.Chakkilala Vyankateshwerlu, Exh.51
Medical Officer
11 Manoj Mendhe Exh.53
12 Shaileja Kale, Medical Officer Exh.57
13 Arjun Laxman Bhand, Investigating Exh.59
Officer
9. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution
mainly relied upon inquest panchanama Exh.21, spot
.....9/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
9
panchanama Exh.24, seizure memos Exhs.25, 26, 28,
and 29, medical certificates of accused persons Exhs.33
to 35, FIR Exh.37, report Exh.31, postmortem report
Exh.52, medical certificates of injured Exh.56 and 58,
requisitions to medical officer Exhs.62 and 64, and CA
Report Exh.61.
10. All the incriminating evidence is put to the
accused persons in order to obtain their explanations
regarding the evidence appearing against them. The
defence of the accused persons is of total denial and of
false implication due to the previous enmity. In support
of their contentions, three defence witnesses were
examined mainly DW1 Vilas Dhawade vide Exh.79, DW2
Arun Lohakare Exh.81, and DW3 Vinod Rokde vide
Exh.84.
.....10/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
10
11. After hearing learned counsel appearing for
both the sides, learned Judge of the trial court held
accused Sangit Ramteke guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
He is also convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
Accused Vijay Ramteke and accused Sanjay Ramteke
were acquitted from the charges.
12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
same, Criminal Appeal No.563/2004 is preferred by
accused Sangit Ramteke on the ground that learned
Judge of the trial court committed error in holding that
the accused caused death of the deceased and it is
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In fact,
there is no evidence to show that the death of the
deceased is caused by the accused and he was driving
.....11/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
11
the said vehicle at the relevant time. Though
independent witnesses are available, which are not
examined, and merely because there was enmity
between the informant and the accused persons, he is
falsely implicated.
13. On the other hand, Criminal Appeal
No.735/2004 is preferred by the State for enhancement
of sentence on the ground that learned Judge of the trial
court ignored the fact that there was political rivalry
between the deceased, informant and the accused
persons. It is an admitted position that there was
political rivalry also between them. Learned Judge of
the trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that it is
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. On the
contrary, evidence of eyewitness informant PW5 Vinod
Choudhari, who is also an injured witness, sufficiently
shows that with an intention to kill them, the accused
.....12/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
12
has driven the vehicle and, therefore, there was
intention as well as knowledge on the part of the
accused which covers under culpable homicide
amounting to murder.
14. Heard learned counsel Mrs.Anjali Joshi for
accused Sangit Ramteke in Criminal Appeal
No.563/2004 and respondents in Criminal Appeal
No.735/2004 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Shri Khan for the State.
15. Learned counsel Mrs.Anjali Joshi, submitted
that though there was a previous enmity between
accused Vijay Ramteke and Sanjay Ramteke on one side
and the informant and deceased on the other side, the
alleged threats of killing are never at the instance of
accused Sangit Ramteke. He was never involved in
politics. He was having no criminal antecedents. He
.....13/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
13
was not office bearer of Gram Panchayat or Panchayat
Samiti. There is no evidence showing that there was a
previous enmity between the accused and the informant
and the deceased. She further submitted that the
evidence on record shows that the alleged incident has
taken place on a heavy traffic road. Though the
evidence shows that there were various shops, no
independent witness is examined by the prosecution.
The prosecution story is entirely based on the evidence
of the informant, who is interested witness. There being
previous enmity, the accused is falsely implicated by
concocting the story. Even, accepting the evidence as it
is, at the most, it is merely an accident. There was
neither knowledge nor intention to kill the deceased. At
the most, it would be error in judgment which resulted
into the accident and, therefore, the judgment impugned
deserves to be quashed. She further pointed out that
.....14/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
14
during pendency of these appeals, accused Sanjay
Ramteke, against whom the State has preferred the
appeal, is reported to be dead on 25.1.2020. The order
as to the abatement, as far as accused Sanjay Ramteke is
concerned, is already passed.
16. Per contra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State vehemently submitted that the
evidence of PW5 Vinod Choudhari, PW6 Manoj
Choudhari, and PW9 Deepak Choudhari specifically
states about the previous enmity between the injured,
deceased, and the accused persons. On the day of the
incident, i.e. 3.7.2002, accused Sangit Ramteke has
driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and gave dash
to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the severe
dash, the deceased thrown on the road and received
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The
informant has also sustained the injuries. The informant
.....15/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
15
is the eyewitness of the said incident. Nothing is
brought on record to show that there is any reason for
the informant to implicate the accused falsely. The
ownership of the vehicle is of accused Sangit Ramteke.
Accused Sangit Ramteke was driving the vehicle at the
relevant. The FIR is also lodged immediately. There is
nothing on record to disbelieve the witnesses. The spot
panchanama shows that the manner in which the
accident occurred. The panchanamas of the vehicles
also disclose regarding the condition of the vehicles
which sufficiently shows that the vehicle was driven
with an intention to cause death of the deceased and,
therefore, the prosecution established that the act of
accused Sangit Ramteke covers under the culpable
homicide amounting to murder. In view of that,
Criminal Appeal No.563/2004 deserves to be dismissed
.....16/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
16
and Criminal Appeal No.735/2004 filed by the State
deserves to allowed.
17. After hearing both the sides and perusing the
evidence adduced as well as submissions, aspect, as to
whether the death of the deceased is culpable homicide
amounting to murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, is under consideration. Whether
the death of the deceased is homicidal, is also required
to be considered.
18. As far as the medical evidence is concerned,
PW10 Dr.Chakkilala Vyankateshwarlu, who has
conducted the postmortem, stated that on 4.7.2002,
dead body of the deceased was brought to him for
conducting postmortem. On examination, he found
external injuries on his person:
.....17/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
17
"(1) There are multiple abrasions over the
scalp 13 cm x 4 cm, 6 cm x 4 cm, 3 cm x 2
cm;
(2) Abrasion on right leg 20 cm x 10 cm;
(3) Abrasion on right knee 4 cm X 2 cm;
(4) Fractured of both bones of right leg;
(5) Multiple abrasions of left knee;
(6) Fracture of both bones of left leg;
(7) Abrasion on right fore-arm 3 cm x 4 cm;
(8) Abrasions on chest left side 20 cm x 10 cm;
(9) Abrasion on chest right side 20 cm x 8 cm;
(10) Fractured ribs on left side 4, 5, 7 and number;
(11) Fractured ribs on right side 4, 5 and 6 number;
(12) Abrasion on right elbow 6 cm x 2 cm;
(13) Lacerated wound on fore-arm 4 cm x 2 cm;
.....18/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
18
(14) Lacerated wound at the base of the nose.
On internal examination, he found following
injuries:
(1) Both lungs are injured. Lungs are pale.
Chestacavity is filled with blood;
(2) Heart is normal in size, but the shape of
the left ventricle disturbed due to injury; and
(3) There is injury over left ventricle 5 cm in
length, 1½ cm in width.
He opined that the probable cause of death is
due to hypo-volumic shock following to injury antgerior
wall of left ventricle and multiple injuries to both lungs
and multiple fracture on both legs. Accordingly, he
prepared the postmortem notes, which are at Exh.52.
He further stated that injuries mentioned by him on
scalp, legs, knees, and forearms can be caused due to
hard and blunt object. He also opined that it is possible
.....19/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
19
that such injuries can be caused if the jeep gives dash to
the motorcycle. He has obtained the blood samples of
accused persons which are at Exhs.33 to 34.
His cross examination shows that such
injuries noted by him are possible due to accident also.
He further admitted that he has witnessed most of the
injuries on the right side of the body of the deceased.
Thus, not only the cross examination but also
the chief examination of this witness shows that the
injuries noted by him are possible due to the accident or
due to dash given by the vehicle to the motorcycle rider.
19. Now, it has to be seen, whether there is any
other evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish
that the death of the deceased is culpable homicide
amounting to murder.
.....20/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
20
20. To prove the charge levelled against accused
persons, the prosecution mainly placed reliance on the
evidence of PW5 Vinod Choudhari, PW6 Manoj
Choudhari, and PW9 Deepak Choudhari.
The evidence of PW5 Vinod Choudhari,
discloses that there was previous enmity between him,
the deceased and the accused persons. As per the
allegations, accused Sanjay Ramteke was asking from
them commission as they were working as contractors
and carrying out works for the Zilla Parishad and
Panchayat Samiti. He deposed that on the day of the
incident i.e. 3.7.2002, he along with the deceased were
returning home on the motorcycle by attending funeral
of their relative. At the relevant time, the jeep
proceeding from Waigaon to Wardha reached in a high
speed from Waigaon towards Wardha from their back
side. Accused Sangit Ramteke was driving the said jeep.
.....21/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
21
His two brothers were also in the said jeep. The said
jeep gave dash to the motorcycle from the centre of that
jeep. The intention of the accused to kill them. Due to
the dash, the deceased fell on the centre of the road and
sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. He
also sustained injuries in the said incident. He took the
deceased in an auto in General Hospital, Wardha. He
further deposed that his brother Manoj is Gram
Panchayat Member of Ward No.5 of Borgaon and also
Member of Panchayat Samiti, Wardha. Prior to his
becoming Member, accused Sanjay Ramteke was
Member of Gram Panchayat of Borgaon Meghe. Accused
Vijay Ramteke was Up-Sarpanch of Borgaon Meghe.
The contract of laying cement road in ward No.5 of
Borgaon was given to the deceased and accused Sanjay
Ramteke demanded commission of Rs.5000/- from the
deceased, but Manoj declined as a result of which there
.....22/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
22
was a scuffle between them. Accused Sanjay Ramteke
made again the demand of commission and threatened
that in case it is not paid, he would not pass bill and also
threatened to kill the deceased. When the said jeep
dashed to their motorcycle, accused Sangit Ramteke, his
brother accused Sanjay Ramteke were sitting in front
seat of that jeep. He lodged the report which is at
Exh.31.
The evidence of PW6 Manoj Choudhari, is
also on the similar line. He deposed that the deceased is
his maternal uncle. There was previous enmity between
the deceased, the informant at one side and on the other
side accused Sanjay and Vijay were involved in
corruption and they have raised objection against these
two accused about their behaviour and conduct. He had
made complaints against both of them to the higher
authority. The deceased was engaged as contractor for
.....23/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
23
laying of cement road. Accused Sanjay and Vijay asked
commission as a bribe from him.
The evidence of PW9 Deepak Choudhari is
also similar as far as the incident is concerned. He
stated that on 3.7.2022, his maternal-uncle and his
brother had been to attend the funeral of their relative.
One truck filled with sand came in front of his house.
He heard voice of his brother Vinod and thereafter, they
took out his maternal uncle who was in an injured
condition and his brother disclosed that all the accused
persons gave dash to the deceased by passenger jeep
when they were proceeding on motorcycle.
These three witnesses are cross examined at
length. During the cross examination, PW5 Vinod
Choudhari stated that the jeep proceeding in high speed
gave dash to the motorcycle due to which the deceased
.....24/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
24
fell on the road, whereas he had at some distance on
road. Though he stated that accused Sangit took his
jeep in reverse direction and thereafter crossed that jeep
from the body of the deceased, the same is omission
which is not narrated by him in his report. His cross
examination further shows that his brother Manoj had
managed funds from the MLA Funds to allot work of
laying of cement road in Borgaon in favour of the
deceased. Regarding the said allotment and
construction of road, accused Sanjay Ramteke and
accused Vijay were raising objections all the while. He
stated that he has no knowledge whether they had made
complaint against the deceased and him to the
Panchayat Samiti regarding allotment of the said work.
He is also not having knowledge that on the say of two
accused persons that as the construction work of road
was of a inferior quality, the accused were not passing
.....25/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
25
bills of the deceased and they were raising objection
and, therefore, the payment was not made. He has also
admitted that accused Sanjay and accused Vijay were
making complaints against them that his house was
constructed on encroached land and in that regard
Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat Borgaon had issued
show cause notice as to why house on encroached land
should not be dismantled. It further came in his
evidence that the deceased was basically resident of
Akola district. Accused Sanjay has lodged the report
against him and his brother Manoj on 26.4.2002 in
Police Station Wardha that they have assaulted him by
means of sword and dagger and Crime No.2734/2002
was registered against both of them and they are facing
trial. It further came in his evidence that against his
brothers also the crime is registered and they are facing
trial. It further came in his evidence that accused Sangit
.....26/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
26
used to ply his taxi jeep on Wardha-Hinganghat Road.
He has also admitted that he was not having knowledge
about registration number of the taxi jeep of accused
Sangit. It further came in the evidence that the accident
took place at Waigaon-Selu Fata which is at about three
and half kilometers from their village. He further
admitted that they heard loud noise and immediately
thereafter he and the deceased were thrown from the
motorcycle. The said motorcycle and he, after the
incident, crossed the distance of about forty meters on
that Hinganghat-Wardha Road. Thus, cross examination
shows that the dash was given from the backside of their
motorcycle and immediately after the dash, they were
thrown on the ground. His evidence further shows that
there was previous enmity between the accused and the
informant and various cases are filed against each other.
.....27/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
27
21. Coming to the evidence of PW6 Manoj
Choudhari, especially the cross examination, admittedly,
he was not present at the time of the incident. He has
stated about the previous enmity between deceased and
the accused that when accused Sanjay was Member of
Panchayat Samiti, Wardha, that time the work of
construction of cement work in Borgaon was sanctioned
and given to the deceased. It further came in his
evidence that accused Sanjay was involved in various
activities like corruption. It further came in his evidence
that they belong to the different parties and, therefore,
there is enmity between them.
22. The evidence of PW9 Deepak Choudhari, who
is not eyewitness of the incident, shows about previous
enmity and also admitted that the quarrel took place
between Manoj, Vinod, and the deceased on one hand
and accused Sanjay on the other hand. He further
.....28/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
28
admitted that he came to know about the incident from
statement given by informant PW5 Vinod Choudhari to
the Police. He specifically admitted that he is having
enmity with the accused persons.
23. Besides the oral evidence, as far as the
injuries sustained by informant PW5 Vinod Choudhari
are concerned, the evidence of PW12 Dr.Shaileja Kale
shows that she was working as medical officer in Civil
Hospital at Wardha. She examined PW5 Vinod and
found three injuries on his person i.e. (i) lacerated
wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on fore-head left side, (ii)
abrasion 3 cm x 3 cm on the back of left elbow joint,
and (iii) multiple abrasions all over the back. The
injuries noticed by her could be caused by hard and
blunt object.
.....29/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
29
During the cross examination, she has
admitted that such injuries are possible if a person falls
on tar road. It is possible that such injuries can take
place if a person who is riding two wheeler falls on the
road due to bursting of tyre.
Thus, the said medical officer has also
admitted that such injuries are possible by accident.
24. Besides the evidence of these witnesses, the
prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 1
Vitthal Shende who acted as a pancha. He has not
supported the prosecution case and left loyalty towards
the prosecution.
25. PW2 Dhnyaneshwar Shende, who has also
acted as pancha on inquest panchanama, has also not
supported the prosecution case.
.....30/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
30
26. PW3 Gajanan Jadhao, has acted as a pancha
on various seizure memos. As per his evidence, he along
with police and other panchas visited the spot of the
incident. He inspected the spot and saw a motorcycle
and blood stains on road. The tyre marks are also noted
by him at that place. The found that the motorcycle in
damage condition. Accordingly, they drawn
panchanama Exh.24. The seizure memo of collection of
blood samples from the spot is at Exh.25 and the
panchanama as to the offending vehicle is at Exh.26.
His cross examination shows that, the spot
was located on HInganghat-Waigaon-Wardha Road.
There used to be heavy traffic of vehicles on this road
since morning till night. Near the spot, Hinganghat-
Wardha Road runs in north-south in direction. From the
same spot, there is a road proceeding in eastern
direction and reaches to village Selu-Kate. The said
.....31/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
31
motorcycle was found lying North-South in direction on
that State Highway. The said motorcycle was lying State
Highway towards the direction wherefrom that road
proceeding to Selu-Kate leads. The police persons were
already present at the spot.
27. The recital of the panchanama also shows that
there were brake marks and tyre marks and the said tyre
marks of skidding is visible on the road upto the
distance of 44 meters towards South.
28. PW4 Sheshrao Pardake, who has also acted as
a pancha, has not supported the prosecution case.
29. PW7 Anand Shiwankar, is PSI. He reached to
the General Hospital and recorded statement of
informant PW5 Vinod Choudhari, which is at Exh.31, on
the basis of which FIR was lodged. He has admitted that
the information regarding the accident was received in
.....32/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
32
Sewagram Police Station at about 5:30 to 6:00 pm.
Entry regarding that fact was taken in station diary.
30. PW8 Gopalsingh Kuware, is another
investigating officer who has drawn the inquest
panchanama, which is at Exh.21.
31. PW11 Manoj Mendhe, stated on 3.7.2002, he
has taken the passenger jeep of the accused persons
along with one Ganu conductor. As to rest of
contentions, he has not supported the prosecution case.
He admitted that he is working as driver on
black and yellow passenger jeep owned by accused
Sangit Ramteke and was plying the said jeep from
Wardha to Hinganghat. He admitted that prior to
3.7.2002, his passenger jeep had received a dash from
one auto and he and the owner of the auto-rickshaw
were called by the police for amicable settlement.
.....33/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
33
32. PW13 Arjun Bhand, is investigating officer
who has carried out the investigation carried out by him.
During his cross examination, he admitted that the spot
of the incident is located at square of Selu-Kate. Selu-
Kate is towards the East of the spot and is at a distance
of one and half kilometers. Entry was taken as to
information of the accident in the station diary. He
prepared panchanama of the spot of the incident.
Initially, AD enquiry was registered regarding the said
incident. He also admitted about the tyre marks
towards the Eastern side of the road. He admitted that
rear side tyre was punctured. He admitted that he has
seen the broken pieces of glass of indicators on the
ground and front mud-guard of the jeep was bent. He
also admitted that witness Manoj has not stated before
him that he had lodged complaints that the accused
persons were giving threats to him. He has not stated
.....34/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
34
before him that accused Sangit and Vijay demanded
amount of Rs.5000/- from the deceased and they
became successful in stopping the work of construction
of road. He stated about political enmity.
33. On the basis of the above evidence, the
prosecution claimed that there was an intention of the
accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased
due to the previous enmity and to execute the act on
3.7.2002, accused Sangit Ramteke has driven the jeep in
a high speed and intentionally gave dash from the
backside of the motorcycle and at the relevant time,
other two accused persons were also present in the jeep
and, therefore, the act of the accused persons covers
under culpable homicide amounting to murder.
34. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State invited our attention to the evidence of PW5 Vinod
.....35/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
35
Choudhari, PW6 Manoj Choudhari, and PW9 Deepak
Choudhari. There is no dispute as to previous enmity
between the accused persons and the informant. The
enmity is of political in nature. The various complaints
are filed against each other.
35. It is a settled law that enmity is a double-
edged weapon. It is true that it can be the motive for the
accused to commit the offence of murder. At the same
time, possibility of false implication due to previous
enmity cannot be ruled out and, therefore, careful
scrutiny of the evidence is required.
36. On going through the evidence of PW5 Vinod
Choudhari, PW6 Manoj Choudhari, and PW9 Deepak
Choudhari, it shows that there was previous enmity. As
far as the evidence that the accused have demanded the
commission from them is an improvement, which is not
.....36/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
36
stated by PW6 Manoj Choudhari in his police statement.
The improvement made by PW5 Vinod Choudhari that
accused Sangit Ramteke, after giving dash to the
motorcycle, took his jeep in reverse direction and
thereafter crossed that jeep from the body of the
deceased, has not stated while lodging the FIR.
37. In the light of the previous enmity, whether
the act of the accused persons covers under the culpable
homicide amounting to murder.
38. Cross examination of informant PW5 Vinod
Choudhari itself shows that the jeep gave dash to the
motorcycle from the backside. There was no
opportunity for him regarding the speed of the vehicle.
His cross examination specifically shows that he was not
having knowledge that Manoj was appointed as driver
on the taxi of the accused. He is knowing the
.....37/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
37
registration number of the taxi jeep. His cross
examination further shows that after the dash to the
motorcycle by the taxi jeep, he was thrown on the road
at 40 feet. Admittedly, his evidence shows as soon as
the dash was given to the motorcycle, he came to know
that their motorcycle was dashed by the jeep owned by
the accused.
39. The evidence of informant PW5 Vinod
Choudhari is to be appreciated in the light of the
evidence of PW3 Gajanan Jadhao, who has acted as a
pancha on spot panchanama. The evidence of PW3
Gajanan Jadhao shows that he had witnessed the tyre
marks on the spot of the incident. His cross examination
shows that at the spot of the incident, there used to be
heavy traffic of vehicles. Near the spot, there "T" Shape
road as the Selu-Kate Road joins the main road. The
motorcycle was lying North-South in direction. The
.....38/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
38
recital of the panchanama also shows that tyre marks
are seen partly turned to the East Side of the road and
visible on the road upto the distance of 44 meters.
40. The evidence of PW3 Gajanan Jadhao is
further required to be appreciated in the light of
admission given by PW10 Dr.Chakkilala
Vyankateshwarlu who has admitted that such type of
injuries can be caused if vehicle gives dash to the
motorcycle rider. He further admitted during the cross
examination such injuries noted by him are possible due
to accident also. He further admitted that most of the
injuries were on the right side of the body of the
deceased.
41. PW12 Dr.Shaileja Kale, also admitted that
such injuries are possible if a person who is riding two
wheeler falls on the road due to bursting of tyre.
.....39/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
39
42. Thus, as far as the intention, which is alleged
by informant PW5 Vinod Choudhari, is concerned, there
is no evidence on record to show that with an intention
to kill the deceased, the vehicle was driven by accused
Sangit Ramteke. Admittedly, knowledge, that driving of
the vehicle in excessive speed would result into an
accident, can be attributable to the accused persons.
43. Learned Judge of the trial court has
considered this aspect and held that as far as intention is
concerned, admittedly, there is no evidence to show that
the vehicle was driven by accused Sangit Ramteke with
an intention to cause death of the deceased, but act of
the accused, that driving of the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner in excessive speed, is sufficient to
attract the knowledge that he is having knowledge that
this act can cause death of the deceased.
.....40/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
40
44. The culpable homicide is defined in Section
299 of the Indian Penal Code and it is genus. Whereas,
the murder defined in Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code and it is specie. Under Section 299 of the Indian
Penal Code, whoever causes death with an intention or
knowledge specified in that section, commits offence of
culpable homicide. However, since culpable homicide is
only genus, it includes two forms; one is a graver
offence which amounts to 'murder' and lesser one which
does not amount to 'murder'. It can be seen that,
therefore, though the offence of culpable homicide is
defined, the said provision does not provide any
punishment for that offence as such and, for the purpose
of punishment, the court has to examine facts and find
out whether the offence falls or does not fall under the
definition of murder under Section 300 of the Indian
Penal Code. In view of this scheme, therefore, every act
.....41/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
41
of homicide falls within the definition of culpable
homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code on the one hand
mentions that a homicide is murder. However, in that
section five exceptions have been given and these
exceptions lay down the circumstances in which the act
causing death is not murder even though it may have
been done with the intention or knowledge specified in
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it has
to be seen; (1) what was the intention or knowledge
with which the act was done and what are
circumstances in which it was done, (2) if it is
established that the offence is culpable homicide, but it
does not fall within the definition of murder and if it
falls under any of exceptions to that section, the offence
is punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal
Code. Once, it is held that the offence falls under
.....42/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
42
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment
differs, depending upon whether the death is caused
with an intention or only with the knowledge and,
therefore, if the element of intention exists, the offence
is punishable under Part-I of Section 304 of the Indian
Penal Code, otherwise, the offence falls under Part-II of
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
45. As observed earlier, the admission given by
informant PW5 Vinod Choudhari, recital of the spot
panchanama, the evidence of PW3 Gajanan Jadhao who
acted as a pancha on spot panchanama, and the
admission given by the medical officer, are sufficient to
show that the death of the deceased is caused due to
dash of the jeep owned by accused Sangit Ramteke and
driven by him in excessive speed without considering
the road condition. On the basis of the evidence
.....43/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
43
adduced, it can be inferred that he was having
knowledge that this act can cause a death of a person.
46. The said aspect is considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Naresh Giri v. State of M.P.,
reported in (2008)1 SCC 791 wherein it is observed
that, "a man is reckless in the sense required when he
carries out a deliberate act knowing that there is some
risk of damage resulting from the act, but nevertheless
continues in the performance of that act."
47. In the case of Anbazhagan vs. State
represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 857 also, while considering the aspect of
"intention" and "knowledge", the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that the word "intent" is derived from the word
archery or aim. The "act" attempted to must be with
"intention" of killing a man. Intention, which is a state
.....44/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
44
of mind, can never be precisely proved by direct
evidence as a fact; it can only be deduced or inferred
from other facts which are proved. The intention may be
proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or
subsequent to the incident or occurrence, on admission.
Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct
evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and
circumstances of a case. There are various relevant
circumstances from which the intention can be gathered.
Some relevant considerations are that 1. the nature of
the weapon used; 2. the place where the injuries were
inflicted; 3. the nature of the injuries caused, and 4. the
opportunity available which the accused gets.
By referring its earlier decision in the case of
Smt. Mathri v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 986, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the word "intent" by
its etymology, seems to have metaphorical allusion to
.....45/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
45
archery, and implies "aim" and thus connotes not a
casual or merely possible result-foreseen perhaps as a
not improbable incident, but not desired-but rather
connotes the one object for which the effort is made-and
thus has reference to what has been called the dominant
motive, without which, the action would not have been
taken. While distinguishing between "motive",
"intention" and "knowledge", "motive" is something
which prompts a man to form an intention and
knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the
act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into
each other and mean the same thing more or less and
intention can be presumed from knowledge. The
demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no
doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they
connote different things. Even in some English decisions,
the three ideas are used interchangeably and this had
.....46/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
46
led to a certain amount of confusion. A man's intention
has to be inferred from what he does. The degree of
guilt depends upon intention and the intention to be
inferred must be gathered from the facts proved.
Sometimes an act is committed which would not in an
ordinary case inflict injury sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Proof of such
knowledge throws light upon his intention. On the
other hand, awareness is termed as "knowledge". The
knowledge of the consequences which may result in the
doing of an act is not the same thing as the intention
that such consequences should ensue. Except in cases
where mens rea is not required in order to prove that a
person had certain knowledge, he "must have been
aware that certain specified harmful consequences
would or could follow. the knowledge that specified
consequences would result or could result by doing an
.....47/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
47
act is not the same thing as the intention that such
consequences should ensue. If an act is done by a man
with the knowledge that certain consequences may
follow or will follow, it does not necessarily mean that
he intended such consequences and acted with such
intention. Intention requires something more than a
mere foresight of the consequences. It requires a
purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.
48. With the above proposition, if the evidence in
the present case is taken into consideration, and the
attending circumstances are looked into, admittedly,
there is nothing on record to show that there was any
overt act on the part of the accused persons which
would show that the intention of the accused was only
to cause death of the deceased or informant PW5 Vinod
Choudhari. There is no single circumstance from which
it can be gathered that there was no any other intention
.....48/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
48
on the part of the accused persons but to cause death of
the deceased. Merely because there was a previous
enmity, that by itself is not sufficient to infer that the
jeep was driven in such a manner to cause death of the
deceased or the informant.
49. The intention to cause death can be gathered
generally from a combination of a few or several of the
following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the
weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by
the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii)
whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v)
whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or
sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the
incident occurs by chance or whether there was any
premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity
or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether
.....49/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
49
there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so,
the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in
the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the
injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel
and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a
single blow or several blows.
50. Difference between two parts of Section 304
is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first
established and the accused is then given the benefit of
one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while
under the second part, the crime of murder is never
established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding
an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the
second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need
not bring his case within one of the exceptions to
Section 300 of the IPC. The word 'likely' means
probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'.
.....50/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
50
When chances of happening are even or greater than its
not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably
happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to
place itself in the situation of the accused and then
judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by
the act he was likely to cause death.
51. After applying the above principle and while
determining the question, admittedly, the facts of the
present case and circumstances under which the alleged
incident has taken place, are sufficient to show that
accused Sangit Ramteke was having knowledge that
driving of the jeep would endanger human lives and
without taking care of the same, he has driven the
vehicle. In such circumstances, the said act would cover
under Section 304-II of the IPC.
.....51/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
51
52. Insofar as the facts of the present case are
concerned, there was previous enmity between the
accused persons and the deceased and the informant.
However, there is no evidence on record to show that
the enmity was of such a nature that the accused
persons with an intention to cause death of the deceased
or the informant has driven the jeep and gave dash to
the motorcycle.
53. Admittedly, the evidence of informant PW5
Vinod Choudhari nowhere shows that after giving dash
to the motorcycle, accused Sangit Ramteke took his jeep
in reverse direction and, thereafter, crossed that jeep
from the body of the deceased. The jeep was driven by
accused Sangit Ramteke. Therefore, the submission of
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that
with an intention to cause death of the deceased, the
vehicle was driven and, thereafter, the accused has
.....52/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
52
committed culpable homicide amounting to murder is
not sustainable. On the other hand, the evidence of
PW5 Vinod and admission given by him during the cross
examination are substantiated by the spot panchanama
wherein the brake marks are seen and the admissions
given by the medical officer show that the injuries noted
by him are possible due to the accident also and,
therefore, the observation of learned Judge of the trial
court that at the most the case would fall under Section
304-II of the IPC is legal and proper and as such there is
no reason to interfere in the said finding. The finding
recorded by learned Judge of the trial court is on the
basis of the evidence adduced and after appreciating the
facts and, therefore, no perversity is found in said
finding.
54. As far as the submission of learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State that the jeep was driven
.....53/-
Judgment
486 apeals563 and 735.04
53
with an intention to cause death is not supported by any
evidence and, therefore, the appeal filed by the State
deserves to be dismissed.
55. In view of the discussion above, we proceed
to pass following order:
ORDER
(1) Criminal Appeal No.563/2004 filed by accused Sangit Ramteke and Criminal Appeal No.735/2004 filed by the State are dismissed.
(2) The judgment and order dated 2.9.2004 passed by learned 1st Ad hoc, Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.189/2002 is maintained. (3) Accused Sangit Ramteke to surrender before the Superintendent of the District Prison at Wardha to undergo the jail sentence.
.....54/-
Judgment 486 apeals563 and 735.04 54 (4) The bail bonds of accused Sangit Ramteke stand cancelled.
Appeals stand disposed of.
(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede, PS !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 15/10/2025 10:14:02