Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Amruta Deshmukh and his son Anil Deshmukh, were convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.123 of 1996 for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The prosecution case was that on the date of incident, the complainant Venkatrao Deshmukh and his brother Nivratti were returning from their field when the accused, who are from the same brotherhood, assaulted them with sticks and a knife due to a land dispute. The complainant sustained injuries on his head and hand, while Nivratti sustained injuries on his head and back. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 307 IPC. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including medical evidence which showed that the injuries were simple in nature and not on vital parts. The court found that there was no intention to cause death, and the offence was not one of attempt to murder but voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons under Section 324 IPC. The court also noted that the trial court had acquitted the third accused Digambar. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and convicting the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (about 15 days) and the fine was maintained. The court directed that the fine amount, if paid, be paid to the complainant as compensation.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Section 324 IPC - Appellants convicted under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder - Court found that the injuries were simple in nature and not on vital parts, and there was no intention to cause death - Held that the offence falls under Section 324 IPC, not Section 307 IPC (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Omissions in FIR - Minor omissions and contradictions do not discredit the prosecution case if the core evidence is consistent - Held that the trial court's finding of guilt under Section 324 IPC was correct (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Law - Common intention - Section 34 IPC - Both appellants participated in the assault with a common intention - Held that Section 34 IPC is applicable (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable or whether the offence falls under Section 324 IPC?
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 307 r.w. 34 IPC set aside. Appellants convicted under Section 324 r.w. 34 IPC. Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (about 15 days). Fine of Rs.1000/- each maintained, to be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Law Points
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Common intention
- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
- Attempt to murder
- Appreciation of evidence
- Medical evidence
- Omissions in FIR
- Interested witnesses
