Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrashekhar @ Akshya @ Balya Bapurao Telegaonkar, was convicted by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 6th March 2008. The High Court heard the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submission, contending that the victim Surekha was married to the appellant and that the evidence was sufficient. However, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death, which is essential for an offence under Section 307 IPC. The injuries were not on vital parts and the medical evidence did not support the charge. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction set aside due to lack of evidence of intention to cause death - The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the requisite intention to cause death of the victim. The injuries were not on vital parts and the medical evidence did not support the charge. Held that the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable based on the evidence on record
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death
- conviction cannot be based on mere injury
- benefit of doubt must be given when evidence is inconsistent
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 94
Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2008
R.R. Srivastava (for appellant), Adgokar (APP for State)
Chandrashekhar @ Akshya @ Balya Bapurao Telegaonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for attempt to murder
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by the trial court for attempt to murder and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellant on 6th March 2008
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was sustainable on the evidence on record
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there was no sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict
State argued that the victim Surekha was married to the appellant and evidence was sufficient
Ratio Decidendi
For an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the intention to cause death. In the absence of such proof, conviction cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
Appellant has challenged legality and validity of judgment and order dated 6th March 2008 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby appellant/accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 6th March 2008 for an offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and decided on 5th January 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307
