1973 INSC 0374
                                                Dattu Genu Gaikwad

                                                           Vs

                                             The State of Maharashtra

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1970

                                       (M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud JJ)

                                                      23.11.1973

                                                     JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, J. -

1. The appellant admitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Sholapur, that he assaulted Nagnath
with the handle of a hunter which led to Nagnath's death. He, however, pleaded that Nagnath and
the eye-witness Ramesh had rushed on him with an axe driving him to retaliate in self-defence. The
learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of Ramesh, disbelieved the defence, convicted the
appellant under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The
High Court, Bombay, dismissed the appeal against that Judgment summarily without recording any
reasons. This appeal by special leave is directed against that order.

2. This Court has held in more than one case that thought the High Courts possess the power to
dismiss criminal appeals summarily, appeals involving serious or substantial questions which are
prima facie arguable should not be dismissed summarily without recording brief reasons in support
of the order of dismissal. (See Shyam Deo Pandey & Others v. State of Bihar, ((1971) 1 SCC 855 :
1971 SCC (Cri 353) and the cases referred to therein). Having considered the facts and
circumstances of this case we do not think that it is possible to bring this case within the rule.

3. The evidence of Ramesh (P.W. 8) and Machhindra (P.W. 9) establishes beyond the measure of a
doubt that on the evening of April 2, 1969, the appellant beat Nagnath mercilessly with the handle
of a hunger. There is not one circumstance which even charitable can be construed to confer the
right of the self-defence on the appellant. Nagnath asked the appellant a rustic question inquiring
whether the appellant had kept buffaloes for drinking milk and this was enough excuse for the
appellant to beat Nagnath to death. The true reason for the assault seems to be that a month or so
before the incident Nagnath had attempted to outrage the modesty of the appellants wife, Hirakani.
The interval between that incident and the assault on Nagnath is too long to afford to the appellant
the benefit of the plea of grave and sudden provocation.

4. The evidence of Dr. Shivappa Shanker Hingmire shows that Nagnath had as many as 12 injuries
on his person and that injury No. 11 on the scrotum was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death.

5. There is therefore no substance in the appeal and the same must be dismissed.

</html