1. UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES
LAW OF CRIMES I
PROJECT ON:
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar vs State Of Maharashtra
SEMESTER VI [B.Tech (ET) + L.L.B(IPR)]
SUBMITTEDTO: SUBMITTTED BY:
MS.KAVYA SALIM DHRUV MATHUR
R840212003
INDEX

2.  INTRODUCTION
 CASE FACTS
 JUDGEMENTS
 SIMILAR CASES
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar vs State Of
Maharashtra on 9 March, 2004

3. INTRODUCTION
Pandurang Varambale (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') would not have in his wildest
dreams on 8.5.1982 dreamt when he left home to attend the invitation extended by the appellant
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar (hereinafter referred to as accused A-1), that he would never return
alive. The appellant allegedly shot him dead by a gun when the deceased was in his house in
response to his invitation to attend a marriage celebration. The appellant along with his wife
Laxmibai (A-4), son Dinkar (A-3) and one Sambhaji Mahadeo Patil (A-2) faced trial. They were
charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Appellant was alternatively charged for
commission of offence punishable under Section 302, 201 and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act,
1959 (in short the 'Arms Act').
The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC
and 25 of the Arms Act. The other three co-accused persons were acquitted. Appellant was
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, two years and six months respectively, with fines and
default stipulations.
CASE FACTS
Complainant Dilip Shripati Dalavi (PW-2) had a laundry in the Shivaji Chowk, Kohlapur. There
was also a hair cutting shop adjoining his laundry, which was run by Shantaram Mane (PW-4) and
Ramchandra Mane. They are friends. The deceased was coming to the said hair cutting saloon and
hence he had become their friend. Accused no.1- appellant was also visiting the said saloon and
he had also become their friend. On 2.5.1982, accused no.1 had come to the shop of Dilip Dalavi
(PW-2) and gave him invitation for dinner arranged in his house at Vadanage, near the limits of
Nigave Dumala Village. The said invitation was for the dinner arranged on 8.5.1982. Besides the
complainant, accused no.1 also invited Rajendra the brother of the complainant, Shantaram Mane
(PW-4) and his brother Rama and another friend Dattu Kurane. Accused no.1 told him that in case

4. they did not attend the dinner, then they will have to pay a penalty of Rs.100/-. At that time,
deceased had come to the saloon where this talk was going on. ThOn 8.5.1982 about 5.30 p.m. the
complainant and others left for Vadanage to the village of accused no.1. After reaching the Mace,
they moved around and thereafter took meals. A bus was to leave at about 8.00 p.m. for their return
journey to Kolhapur. They finished their meals at about 7.30 p.m. Thereafter all the invitees came
out of the house and they wanted to catch the bus.
One Sambhaji Patil (A-2) and one unknown person entered the house of accused no.1. Deceased
also followed them and went inside. As there was some time for catching the bus, the complainant
also entered the house of accused no.1 for chewing betal leaves. The bus stop was just in front of
the house of accused no.1. The complainant sat on the cot. The deceased was standing on the
threshold of the house. The unknown person was standing close to them. Accused no.2 was sitting
on the chair in front of him.
Accused no.1 lifted the gun, loaded it with cartridge and pointed it towards the deceased and then
fired it. The said shot hit on the left side chest of the deceased, who collapsed and blood started
oozing. As soon as deceased fell down, he died instantaneously. As the complainant was afraid,
he came out of the house. Rajendra, Shantaram, Ramchandra and Dattu Kurane were outside the
house. As soon as he came out of the house, those persons enquired from him about the sound. He
disclosed to them that accused no.1 had fired a gun hitting Pandurang. Thereafter they all started
towards Vadanage. They went to the house of Sadashiv Khadaka to whom they narrated the
incident, because he was their friend. The distance between his house and the house of accused
no.1 is about 2 to 3 kms. The brother-in-law of the deceased resides in the same village. Khadake
had taken them in his house. Then they went to village Kerli in the bus belonging to the society of
Vadanage, because the deceased was from Kerli. Then they went to Mahadeo Varsmble who is the
cousin brother of the deceased. They woke him up and told him about the incident. Thereafter they
all went to Shripati Chougule and disclosed to him the incident. Then he himself alongwith five
others who were present for the dinner came to Karvir Police Station in jeep. Shripati Chougule
came to the police station by motorcycle. Complaint was lodged in the Karvir Police Station. It
was reduced into writing. On the basis of the said first information report, the Police Inspector
Shirawekar registered the offence u/s 302 IPC and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

5. Thereafter Police Inspector visited the spot along with the complainant and his staff in the jeep.
The complainant pointed out the house of accused no.1. Police Inspector called out accused no.1
by standing near door. Accused no.1 who came out by opening the latch of the door was arrested.
A green lungi which was on the person of accused no.1 was attached under panchanama (Ex.12).
On interrogation accused no.1 expressed his willingness to show the well where the corpse of the
deceased was thrown. The said well is situate at village Kerli. Accordingly a memorandum was
prepared vide Ex.23 in presence of the panchas. Accused no.1 then led them to the well and the
dead body of deceased was taken out from the well. It was wrapped in a gunny bag. After opening
the gunny bag, the dead body was taken out. It was identified by Sadashiv and others. Accordingly
panchanama (Ex.24) was prepared. Under the panchanama muddemal articles nos. 2 and 3 were
also attached. Then inquest on the dead body was drawn (Ex.30). The dead body was sent to the
doctor for autopsy. Then the Police Inspector arrested accused no.2. He also attached a white Dhoti
and Nehru shirt (Art. 4 & 5) of deceased no.2 under panchanama (Ex.14). Then he visited the scene
of offence in the morning and drew panchanama (Ex.15). He found some blood stains on the
threshold and also on the bench. The floor was cleaned with cow dung. Soiled cow dung was found
at the backyard of the house of accused no.1. It was also attached. Statements of witnesses were
recorded.
On 30.5.1982 he sent the muddemal articles nos. 1 to 30 and also the viscera and plastic like
material forwarded by the Medical Officer, along with his forwarding letter to the Chemical
Analyser Pune so also, muddemal article, no.10 the gun was sent to the Ballistic Expert for
examination and his opinion. On enquiry it was revealed that the gun (Art.10) was in the name of
accused no.3 having a valid license. The same was attached by him. He obtained a permission
from the District Magistrate, Kolhapur (Ex.21) against accused no.1 for having used the gun
without valid licence. For his prosecution under the Arms Act. After conclusion of the
investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur.
The charge was framed against accused nos. 1 to 4 and they pleaded not guilty.

6. Accused appellant took the plea that on the date of occurrence he had invited 30/40 persons to
attend the dinner and the deceased was one of them. He was heavily drunk and was not in a position
to walk and also unable to control himself. Apprehending that the deceased might create problems
and fall on the road, the appellant dissuaded him from returning to his place and advised him to go
on the next day. But the deceased paid little heed. To scarce him, the appellant picked up a gun
lying there, loaded the same with blank cartridges which only create noise. But the deceased tried
to snatch it from him. In the scuffle when the deceased pulled the barrel of the gun accidentally it
got fired and deceased sustained injuries on his chest. After seeing the injury, the appellant was
totally shocked and fled away. The other accused persons denied their involvement in the
occurrence. The trial Court as noted above, found the co-accused not guilty but recorded the
conviction so far as the appellant is concerned under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 25(1A) of
the Arms Act, and imposed sentences.
The plea before the High Court which, did not find acceptance, was that there was no offence
involved as the act was covered by Section 80 IPC. In any event, there was no element of
culpability to bring home accusations of Section 302. At the most it was covered by Section 304A.
Finally, it was submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted in its toto, the case would
be covered under Section 304 Part II. The trial Court held that though intention may not be
attributed for causing death, it cannot be said that the accused did not have the requisite knowledge
and the case was covered under clause fourthly of Section 300. In appeal by the impugned
judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. It, however, held that the case was
really covered by clauses Firstly and Thirdly of Section 300.
JUDGEMENTS
VISHNU SAHAI, J. –

7. ( 1. ) VIDE Judgment and Order dated 30th March 1983 passed in Sessions Case no. 76 of 1982,
the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner
stated hereinafter:-
(i)Under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life;
(ii)Under Section 201 IPC to suffer 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer RI
for 6 months; and
(iii)Under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act to suffer 6 months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-
in default to suffer RI for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Along with the appellant three others, viz; Sambhaji Mahadeo Patil, Dinkar Shankar Bhadolkar
and Laxmibai who were also prosecuted and tried but they have been acquitted by the impugned
judgment.
( 2. ) THE prosecution case in brief runs as follows:- THE informant Dilip Shripati Dalavi P. W.
2 had a laundry shop in Shivaji Chowk, Kolhapur. Adjoining his shop was a hair cutting saloon
run by two brothers viz; Shantaram Mane P. W. 4 and Ramchandra Mane. THE deceased
Pandurang Varambale was visiting their hair cutting saloon and hence he became friendly to Dilip
Dalavi. THE appellant was also visiting the said saloon and hence became Dilip's friend. On
2/5/1982 the appellant came to Dilip's shop and invited for him to dinner at his house situated in
village Vadange. THE said invitation was for having dinner on 8/5/1982. Besides Dilip, appellant
invited his brother Rajendra, Shantaram Mane P. W. 4 and Dattu Kurne. THE said acquitted
accused Sambhaji Patil had invited Bapu Khadake P. W. 3 for the said dinner. At the time of
invitation the deceased Pandurang Varambale also happened to come in the saloon. He was also
invited for the dinner. On 8.5 . 1982 at about 5 . 30 p. m. Dilip Dalavi, Shantaram, Rajendra,
Ramchandra, Dattu Kurane and the deceased Pandurang Varambale went to the village of the
appellant for having dinner. After reaching the house of the appellant they indulged in some
friendly conversation and thereafter took their dinner. It appears that Bapu Khadake P. W. 3 had
also been invited for the dinner. They finished their dinner at about 7. 30 p. m. They wanted to
return by S. T. Bus which was to leave at about 8. 00 p. m. Thereafter all of them came out of the
house to catch the bus. Acquitted accused Sambhaji Patil and one stranger entered into the house
of the appellant. Pandurang Varambale also followed them and went inside. Dilip also entered into
the house for chewing betel leaves and sat down on the cot. Pandurang Varambale was standing.

8. THE stranger was standing close to them. Acquitted accused Sambhaji Patil was sitting on the
chair in front of Dilip. At that time, the appellant lifted the gun, loaded it with cartridge and
pointing it towards the deceased fired at him. THE shot struck on the left side of the chest of the
deceased, who fell down as a result thereof and died instantaneously. Apart from Dilip this incident
was also seen by P. W. 3 Bapu Khadake. After the incident, Dilip came out of the house. Shantaram
Mane P. W. 4 and others who were outside the house, enquired from him about the sound and he
disclosed to them that the appellant had fired on the deceased. After the incident was over, Dilip
went to the house of Sadashiv Khadake, his friend, and narrated to him the incident. Sadashiv
Khadake took Dilip to the house of the brother-in-law of the deceased. The F. I. R. of the incident
was lodged by Dilip Dalavi P. W. 2 on the night of 9/5/1982 at Police Station Karvir. It was
registered by Police Inspector Devidas Shirawekar P. W.11. On its basis C. R. No.75/82 under
Section 302 IPC and 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act was registered. The investigation of the case was
conducted by Police Inspector Devidas Shirawekar. After registering! the case on the basis of the
F. I. R. he proceeded for the place of the incident on a jeep. He reached the house of the appellant
and called him. He arrested him. Under a panchanama he attached a green lungi which the
appellant was putting on. On interrogation the appellant expressed his willingness to show the
place where he had thrown the corpse of the deceased. Consequently, under a panchanama, in the
presence of public panch Shripati Chougule P. W. 1, on the pointing of the appellant, the dead
body of the deceased which was wrapped in a gunny bag was taken out from the well. Thereafter
inquest on the corpse was prepared. In the morning PI Shirawekar visited the scene of offence and
prepared the spot panchanama. At the place of the incident he found blood stains on a bench. He,
however found the floor to be cleaned. He recorded the statement of Sadashiv Khadake and some
others. On 9/5/1982 he attached the clothes of the deceased. On 11/5/1982 he recorded the
statement of four witnesses. Ultimately, after completing the investigation he submitted the
chargesheet against the appellant and the acquitted accused who were also apprehended during the
course of investigation.
(3.) GOING backwards, the autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Vyankatesh
Dattatraya Rayakar P. W. 12 on 9/5/1982 between 6.00 a. m. to 8. 00 a. m. On the corpse the doctor
found the following two ante-mortem injuries: - 1. Oval injury, over-lying 6th costal cartilage left,
near its sternal end, 2.5 c. m. plus 2 cm x 4 cm, oval shaped, Depth 7.5 cm. Direction: Medial
posteriorily upwards, Blood clot present, Collar of abrasion 1 cm thick all around the above injury.

9. 2. Oval injury 2 cm x 1 cm over-lying 7th intercostal cartilage, left 6 cm from left sternal border.
Depth 7.5 cm Direction Medial posterior upwards. Blood clot present. Collar of abrasion. Both the
injuries were on the left side of the chest and were caused within 12 hours roughly. On internal
examination, doctor found rupture of pericardium and of both the ventricles. Dr. Rayakar opined
that the deceased died on account of injury to the heart and the said injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the
usual manner. In the trial Court the appellant and the acquitted accused persons were charged under
Section 302 IPC, 201 IPC and 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and an alternative charge under Section
302 IPC was also framed against the appellant. To the said charges the appellant and the others
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial Court, in all, the prosecution examined as
many as 12 witnesses. Out of them, two viz; Dilip Dalavi P. W. 2 and Bapu Khadake P. W. 3 were
examined as eye witnesses. Shantaram Mane P. W. 4 gave evidence which would be admissible
under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. In defence no witness was examined. The learned Trial Judge
believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and passed the impugned judgment. Hence this
appeal.
SIMILAR CASES
1. Kesar Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2008
Appellants were charged for commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case. He, however,
opined that no case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was made out.
On an appeal having been preferred thereagainst, a learned Single Judge of the High Court,
while relying on the decision of this Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC
465] as also in Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) (9) SCC 71]
2. Krishna Maniyani vs The State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2007

10. The other decision relied on by the petitioner is Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of
Maharashtra 2005 SCC(Crl.) 22. The dictum kid down in the above judgment, in my view,
has no relevance to the facts of the case on hand.
It has to be noticed that the court below had framed charge on the basis of the materials
placed by the Investigating Agency before it. The question whether the petitioner is liable
to be convicted under Section 304 will entirely depend on the evidence that may be adduced
by the prosecution. This Court, in my view, will not be justified in quashing the
proceedings by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code in this case.
3. Krishna Maniyani vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2006
The other decision relied on by the petitioner is Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of
Maharashtra 2005 SCC (Cri) 22: 2004 Cri LJ 1778. The dictum laid down in the above
judgment, in my view, has no relevance to the facts of the case on hand.
It has to be noticed that the Court below had framed charge on the basis of the materials
placed by the Investigating Agency before it. The question whether the petitioner is liable
to be convicted under Section 304 will entirely depend on the evidence that may be adduced
by the prosecution. This Court, in my view, will not be justified in quashing the
proceedings by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code in this case.
4. Sanjay vs The State on 31 January, 2011
In Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases
71, it has been held.
In the said case accused and deceased were going on a hill road, an altercation took place
between them on hill road, accused suddenly pushed deceased from the road as a result of
which deceased fell down from the hill and sustained injuries to which he later on
succumbed in the hospital. In the above facts, Supreme Court has held that the offence

11. punishable under Section 304-II IPC was disclosed and the ingredients of offence
punishable under Section 304-A were not attracted.
5. Lalit Kumar vs State on 18 March, 2011
Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Sr.Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on (2005)
9 SCC71, Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra; (2004) 11 SCC395 Sridhar
Bhuyan v. State of Orissa; (2006) 10 SCC 524, Lachman Singh v. State of Harayan; AIR
1958 SC 465, Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab ; AIR 2008 SC 462, Gali Venkataiah v. State
Andhra Pradesh and (2002) 1 SCC 351, Munshi Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar in
support of pleas and contentions on behalf of the appellant.
In this case, deceased and some other persons were invited by the appellant Shankar
Narayan Bhadolkar to attend dinner at his house and after finishing meal, the deceased was
standing on the threshold of the house. Appellant lifted the gun, unlocked it, loaded it with
cartridge and shot the gun from a close range aiming at the chest of the deceased. The
version of the appellant was that the deceased was heavily drunk and was not paying any
heed to what was being said to him and, therefore, in order to scare him appellant had
picked up a gun, loaded with blank cartridges which only created noises, but in the scuffle
the said gun got fired and the deceased sustained injuries. In the circumstances, analyzing
the evidence it was held that there was no element of culpability to bring home accusations
of Section 302 and at the most it was covered by Section 304A. It was further held that
Section 304A applies to cases where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and
is not applicable where the act is done with the intention or knowledge to cause death.
6. Rahima vs State Of Kerala on 29 November, 2012
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra. In that case, the deceased was invited
by the accused for a dinner and after dinner while the deceased was waiting for the bus, the
accused picked up a gun and unlocked it and loaded with cartridge and shot from a close
range while aiming at the chest and in such circumstances, it has been held that, it may not

12. fall under Section 304A of Crl. R. P. No.1957 & 1958 of 2014 Indian Penal Code and it
cannot be said to be a negligent act or it is an accident. But it may fall under Section 304
part II of the Indian Penal Code, as he had done it with a knowledge that, his act is likely
to cause death.
7. Hakim Khan vs State Of M.P. on 20 May, 2006
Considering the above evidence, it is clear that prosecution has proved that appellant has
caused injury on the neck of the deceased.
Now the next question is whether the offence committed by the appellant will fall under
illustration (c) of Section 299 of IPC or will fall within Clause 3rdly of Section 300 of IPC.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the manner in which the offence is committed, the
offence will fall under illustration (c) of Section 299, IPC. In support of his contention,
learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra. He submitted that the Apex
Court after examining and explaining the intention of Sections 299 and 300, IPC has held
that the offence alleged in the said case is covered by Section 304, Part I of IPC.
8. Madhu Dharamji Ovhal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25
August, 2011
These observations were later on referred to and reproduced by the Supreme Court of India
in the case of Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2004 Supreme
Court 1966 ). They were again reproduced by the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Abdul Waheed Khan alias Waheed and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 2005 SCC
(Criminal) 1302 ).
From the observations of the Supreme Court in the above cases, it becomes clear that there
is no radical difference between the offence of culpable homicide (punishable under
Section 304 of I.P.C. ) and murder (punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. ).

13. 9. Sanjeev Nanda vs The State on 20 July, 2009
10. Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007
11. Jagriti Devi vs State Of H.P on 6 July, 2009
12. Satish Narayan Sawant vs State Of Goa on 14 September,
2009
BIBLOGRAPHY
1. www.lawweb.in
2. www.legaldatabase.in
3. www.indiankanoon.org
4. www.the-laws.com
5. www.advocatekhoj.com