'Not Sudden Quarrel' Bombay High Court Upholds Man's Murder Conviction For Killing Friend Over Rs 200 Loan
While upholding the conviction and life sentence imposed on a man by a Sessions Court in Thane for stabbing a friend to death just because he refused to give him a 'loan' of Rs 200, the Bombay High Court last month held that the said crime cannot be said to be a 'sudden quarrel' as the accused first pre-mediated the attack and then executed the same, killing the deceased.
A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Sandesh Patil noted that the convict - Ejaj alias Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari had stabbed the deceased Mohammed Faiji twice on 'vital' parts of his body - intestines and rectum, resulting in deep injuries, and further in death of the deceased.
The judges noted that on February 7, 2019, when Faiji and his brother - both residents of Bhiwandi, Thane, were heading towards a hotel for purchasing some snacks for their guests, the appellant Ejaj along with another friend, met them on the way to hotel. He then demanded Rs 200 as a 'loan' from Faiji, who refused to give any penny. The deceased and his brother then went to the hotel, purchased some snacks. When the were returning, the appellant Ejaj again confronted them which led to an altercation and subsequently, he stabbed Faiji on his waist and butts and fled from the spot.
The deceased was rushed to a nearby hospital where his 'dying declaration' was recorded by the police. He was then shifted to the JJ Hospital in Mumbai, where after undergoing a 'major' surgery, he succumbed to the 'deep' injuries, the bench noted.
The bench, therefore, refused to accept the submissions of the appellant that it would be a lesser offence and not the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"Firstly, the incident does not fall within any of the exceptions mentioned under Section 300 of IPC. It can certainly not be termed as a sudden quarrel. The incident took place in parts," the bench recorded in the order passed on March 30.
In the first part, the bench noted, when the deceased was going to the hotel, the appellant and his companion stopped him and asked for money. The deceased refused. When he was returning back, then again, he was confronted by the appellant and his companion and this time, the appellant removed a knife and gave not only one blow, but the second blow as well.
"The first blow was aimed at the abdomen, but only because the deceased turned to save himself, it fell on the waist. But, even then, it was a forceful blow piercing the intestine, the second blow was equally forceful. Therefore, there was preparation, there was pre-meditation and there was execution of his intention by giving forceful blows on the vital parts. The Post Mortem notes show that the deceased had to undergo major surgery, but he could not be saved. Thus, all the ingredients of Section 300 are proved in this case," the judges held.
Further, the bench after sifting through the evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution has proven not only the written dying declaration, but also the testimony of the eye-witness Faiji's brother and mother.
"Their evidence is supported by the medical evidence given by the medical expert who had conducted the Post Mortem examination. All these pieces of evidence taken together showed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Looking at the incident, the nature of injuries, the intentions and the knowledge attributed to the appellant, it cannot be said that it is a lesser offence and not the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC," the bench opined.
With these observations, the bench refused to interfere with the March 6, 2023 order of Thane Sessions Court.
Appearance:
Advocate Ajit Savagave was appointed for the Appellant.
Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute represented the State.
Case Title: Ejaj Urf Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 1377 of 2023)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 190