Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from a sessions case where two accused (Anand Roopchand Gajbhiye and Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan) were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for attempt to murder. The State also appealed against the acquittal of other accused. The incident involved an attack on the complainant and his family members. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the injured witnesses gave contradictory statements about the number and identity of assailants. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution's version. Consequently, the appeals by the convicted accused were allowed, and their conviction and sentence were set aside. The State's appeals against acquittal were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC - Appreciation of Evidence - The appellants were convicted for attempt to murder based on testimony of injured witnesses. The High Court found material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the identity of the assailants and the manner of incident. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside (Paras 1-38).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals by the convicted accused (Criminal Appeal No.736/2003) are allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused are acquitted. The appeals by the State (Criminal Appeal Nos.1381/2003 and 1382/2003) are dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Appreciation of evidence
- Identification of accused
- Benefit of doubt
