Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhimashankar Raigonda Bhuyare, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.84 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved, he filed the present appeal. The prosecution case was that on 29th November 1995 at about 9 p.m., the appellant caused the death of Sidhappa Vithoba Koli by inflicting a blow on his head with a wooden stick, to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment at Civil Hospital, Solapur. The incident occurred in front of the deceased's hotel at Village Kusur. The prosecution relied on the ocular evidence of Mangal Koli (P.W.1), niece of the deceased, and Balasaheb Herkar (P.W.5), a member of the dairy where the appellant was chairman. The incident was reported to police at 00.20 hours by P.W.1. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The court examined the testimonies and found material contradictions between P.W.1 and P.W.5 regarding the manner of assault and the weapon used. P.W.1 stated that the appellant hit the deceased with a stick on the head, while P.W.5 stated that the appellant hit with a stick on the head and also kicked. The court held that these contradictions create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part II IPC - Ocular Evidence - Contradictions - The appellant was convicted for causing death by a single blow on the head. The prosecution relied on two eyewitnesses, but their testimonies contained material contradictions regarding the manner of assault and the weapon used. The court held that such contradictions create reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal. (Paras 1-11) B) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Ocular Witnesses - Contradictions - The court examined the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.5 and found inconsistencies in their versions about the incident. The court held that when the substratum of the prosecution case is shaken by contradictions, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant to be released unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
- Section 304 Part II IPC
- Ocular evidence
- Contradictions
- Benefit of doubt
- Acquittal
