Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satish Suresh Shrisundar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.200/2014 on 29.12.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from an incident on 15.03.2014 at around 9:00 p.m. when the appellant and his minor brother allegedly went to the grocery shop of Umesh (the deceased) and asked for cigarettes on credit. When Umesh refused, the appellant allegedly struck Umesh on the head with an iron hammer, and the minor brother caught hold of Umesh. The complainant, Jagannath (father of Umesh), intervened and was pushed, causing him to fall and sustain an injury near his left eye. Umesh was initially treated at a local hospital and later referred to GHATI, Aurangabad, where he died on 26.03.2014. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, and later Sections 326 and 302 IPC were added after Umesh's death. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence of eye witnesses, including the complainant and his wife, and the medical evidence. The court found that the eye witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding the weapon used and the manner of assault. The medical evidence showed that the cause of death was 'cardio-respiratory arrest due to septicemia due to head injury,' but the doctor did not confirm that the injury was caused by a hammer. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Inconsistent Evidence - The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and causing hurt under Section 323 IPC. The court examined the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence. The eye witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding the weapon used and the manner of assault. The medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the hammer blow caused the death, as the deceased died 11 days after the incident due to complications. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistent Medical and Ocular Evidence - The court noted that the medical evidence showed the cause of death was 'cardio-respiratory arrest due to septicemia due to head injury,' but the injury was not necessarily caused by a hammer. The eye witnesses claimed a hammer was used, but the medical officer did not confirm the weapon. The court held that when there is inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 15-18) C) Criminal Law - Section 323 IPC - Simple Hurt - The appellant was also convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt to the complainant. However, the court found that the evidence regarding the hurt was also inconsistent and not reliable. The conviction under Section 323 IPC was also set aside. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.200/2014 on 29.12.2016 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 326 IPC
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Criminal Appeal
- Acquittal
- Benefit of Doubt
- Inconsistent Evidence
- Medical Evidence
- Cause of Death
- Eye Witness Testimony
