Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an incident on 11.05.2005 at around 12.30 am, where the appellants, Pravin Deorao Oimbe and Yashwant Ganesh Kaside, were accused of causing grievous hurt to Chandrakant Mourya (PW-3) by means of a sword and kicks. The prosecution alleged that the accused acted in furtherance of common intention, resulting in the severance of the injured's right thumb and other injuries. The First Information Report was lodged by PW-1 Chandan Thakur, leading to registration of Crime No. 362/05 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to Sessions. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to two years RI and fine. The appellants challenged the conviction before the High Court. The main legal issues were whether the prosecution proved the identity of the assailants and common intention beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants argued that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 (injured), and PW-4 was inconsistent and unreliable, and that there was no independent witness. The respondent/State supported the conviction. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found material contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The court noted that the injured (PW-3) did not name the appellants in his statement before the doctor, and the other witnesses gave varying accounts. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the assailants and common intention, and therefore the conviction was not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 326 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on unreliable and inconsistent testimony of injured witness and interested witnesses - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the assailants and common intention beyond reasonable doubt, hence conviction set aside (Paras 1-15). B) Evidence Law - Interested Witness - Testimony of related witnesses requires corroboration - Held that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4, being friends and relatives of the injured, was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses, making it unsafe to rely upon (Paras 10-12). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Requirement of pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds - Held that mere presence at the scene or similar acts do not establish common intention; prosecution failed to prove any prior concert between the accused (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2007 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 326 IPC requires proof of grievous hurt by dangerous weapon
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution evidence is inconsistent and unreliable
