Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anil Namdeo Rajguru, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.732 of 1998 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.500 for the first charge, and RI for two months with fine of Rs.100 for the second charge, and RI for four months with fine of Rs.100 under the Bombay Police Act. The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction. The prosecution case was that on the date of incident, PW1 Ashok and PW2 Manoj were injured by the appellant and another accused. However, the High Court found that the evidence of the injured witnesses was inconsistent. PW1 stated that there were four assailants, while PW2 stated there were only two. Neither witness identified the appellant in court as one of the assailants. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court also observed that the common intention under Section 34 IPC was not established. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Inconsistent Evidence - The prosecution case relied on injured witnesses PW1 and PW2, but their testimonies were inconsistent regarding the number of assailants and the role of the appellant. The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Law - Identification - Section 307 IPC - Doubtful Identification - The injured witnesses failed to identify the appellant in court and their previous identification was not proved. The court held that identification must be clear and reliable for conviction (Paras 3-5). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Not Proved - The prosecution did not establish any common intention between the appellant and co-accused. The court held that mere presence is insufficient to attract Section 34 IPC (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Identification of accused
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 506(2) IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 135 Bombay Police Act
