Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by four accused persons against their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, for offences under Sections 302/324 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on the day of the incident, accused No.4 Vijay abused Santosh, son of the deceased Kacharu. When complainant Ashok questioned Vijay, a quarrel ensued. Accused No.1 Kashinath, No.3 Yamaji, and No.4 Vijay allegedly assaulted Kacharu with sticks and pelted stones, causing fatal injuries. Kacharu died in hospital. The trial court convicted all four accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the specific roles of each accused. The court noted that the complainant Ashok's version differed from other eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the alleged assault with sticks. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The accused were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Sections 302, 324, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against conviction - The appellants were convicted for murder of Kacharu and causing grievous hurt to Ashok - The High Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, particularly regarding the role of each accused and the manner of assault - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove common intention beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt given to all accused - Conviction set aside (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/324 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302/324 read with 34 IPC are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Common intention
- Section 34 IPC
- Appreciation of evidence
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt
