Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ganesh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 August, 2025
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.42/2013
GANESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.487/2014
O R D E R
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, whereby the
High Court has confirmed the conviction and life
sentence imposed upon the appellants by the Court of
Sessions for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’), the present appeals
have been filed.
The appellants are original accused Nos. 1 and 2
(for short, ‘A-1 and A-2’). The occurrence was on
20.06.2003. As per the First Information Report
lodged on the basis of the statement of PW-13, who is
Signature Not Verified
the son of the deceased along with his accomplices,
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2025.08.11
16:59:03 IST
Reason: assaulted the deceased, A-1, with a sharp-edged
weapon, kukri. He was arrested on the same day. An
oral dying declaration was allegedly made by the
2
deceased to his son PW-13 by which A-2 was also
implicated.
Thereafter, a dying declaration was recorded by
PW-1, the Special Judicial Magistrate on 23.06.2003,
whereunder the deceased stated that 8-9 persons had
assaulted him and A-2 was one of the assailants. The
deceased was discharged on 30.06.2003. However, he
was admitted in the hospital once again on 04.07.2003
as he had developed septicemia. Subsequently, he
passed away on 05.07.2003.
From the evidence of the doctor who conducted
the post-mortem, and deposed as PW-4 in tune with
Exhibit P-40, which is the post-mortem report, the
High Court has duly taken note of the fact that the
deceased, indeed died of septicemia. However, the
conviction of the appellants was still rendered for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the case on hand would squarely be
covered by Explanation II of Section 299 of the IPC,
in which case, the conviction under Section 302 is to
be modified to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State submits that inasmuch as the eye witnesses were
present at the place of occurrence followed by the
dying declaration recorded by PW-1, there is no need
to interfere with the impugned judgment.
3
Explanation II to Section 299 of the IPC states
as follows:
“Section 299. Culpable homicide.—Whoever
causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.
xxx xxx xxx
Explanation 2— Where death is caused by bodily
injury, the person who causes such bodily
injury shall be deemed to have caused the
death, although by resorting to proper
remedies and skilful treatment the death
might have been prevented.”On a perusal of the materials on record, it is
clear that the deceased died due to septicemia. The
fact is that he was indeed discharged from the
hospital on 30.06.2003, after ten days of treatment
before passing away on 05.07.2003. Thus, this is a
case which would attract Explanation II of Section
299 of the IPC. Therefore, the appellants have
committed an offence punishable under Section 304
Part I of the IPC as what is attracted per se is
Section 299 of the IPC.
In such view of the matter, the impugned
4
judgment passed by the High Court is set aside by
modifying the conviction to one under Section 304
Part I of the IPC.
As the appellants, A-1 and A-2, have already
undergone 11 years and 9½ years of incarceration
respectively, we modify the sentence to the one
already undergone by the appellants while modifying
the conviction of the appellants to one under Section
304 Part I of the IPC.
The appeals stand allowed in part, accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
…………………………………J.
[JOYMALYA BAGCHI]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 07, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 42/2013
GANESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 487/2014 (II-A)
Date : 07-08-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHIFor Appellant(s) Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv.
Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv.
Ms. Ruchika Bhan, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals stand allowed in part in termsof the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]