Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shevanta Babu Jadhav, the informant and victim, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Solapur, dated 15th October 2016 in Sessions Case No.235 of 2014, whereby the accused-respondents (Baban Gundu Pawar, Neharu Baban Pawar, and Jamunabai Gundu Pawar) were acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case was that on 4th August 2013 at about 12 noon, while the informant was winding pigeon pea crop in a field, the accused came and abused her. Accused No.1 (A-1) allegedly threatened to kill her and her family, accused No.3 (A-3) caught hold of her hands, A-1 struck her on the head with a stick, and accused No.2 (A-2) hit her on the nose with an axe, causing bleeding. The informant fell unconscious and later regained consciousness in the hospital. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The appellant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court erred in disbelieving the informant's testimony and that the injuries were sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC. The respondents argued that the acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and should not be interfered with. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The court noted that the informant's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence, as the doctor did not mention any injury on the nose or head caused by an axe or stick, and the informant herself admitted that she did not know who assaulted her. The court also observed that the informant was an interested witness and her testimony lacked corroboration. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, particularly the intention to kill. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can re-appreciate evidence but should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable - Held that the appellate court must give due weight to the opinion of the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses (Paras 7-8). B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Ingredients - To constitute an offence under Section 307, the prosecution must prove the intention to kill and an act done towards that end - Held that the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the circumstances must indicate the intention to cause death (Para 9). C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Testimony of interested witness - The evidence of an interested witness is not necessarily unreliable but must be scrutinized with care and caution - Held that the testimony of the informant, being the victim and an interested witness, required corroboration in material particulars (Para 10). D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Medical evidence - Discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence - When the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version regarding the nature and cause of injuries, the prosecution case becomes doubtful - Held that the trial court's finding of acquittal based on such discrepancy was not perverse (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Sessions Court acquitting the accused is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Scope of interference
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Testimony of interested witness
- Medical evidence
- Corroboration
