Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ashok Bandu Kakade, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 285/98 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant, who was the real brother of the victim Prabhakar, was addicted to liquor and had sold his house to Prabhakar. There were frequent quarrels between them. On 9.5.1998 at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant and his friend Narayan (accused No.2) beat up Prabhakar, and after Prabhakar died, they lifted the body and threw it into a well. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC but acquitted him of the murder charge. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding the weapon used and the manner of assault. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case that the injuries were caused by a dangerous weapon. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Section 324 IPC - Acquittal - Prosecution failed to prove that the appellant caused hurt with a dangerous weapon - Inconsistencies in the evidence of eyewitnesses regarding the weapon used and the manner of assault - Benefit of doubt given to the appellant - Held that the conviction under Section 324 IPC is not sustainable (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence
- Failure to prove motive
- Acquittal under Section 302 IPC
- Conviction under Section 324 IPC set aside
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (02) 4
Criminal Appeal No.312 of 1999
Smt. A.N. Ansari for Appellant, Shri V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for Respondent/State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 324 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge for voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to three years R.I.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 324 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
State argued that the conviction is based on credible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused hurt with a dangerous weapon. Inconsistencies in the evidence of eyewitnesses regarding the weapon used and the manner of assault entitle the appellant to the benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th June, 1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.285/98 thereby convicting the appellant / accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years.
It is the case of the prosecution that appellant / accused Ashok is real brother of the victim Prabhakar.
On 9.5.1998 at about 3.30 p.m., accused Ashok and his friend accused No.2 Narayan sat with Prabhakar in front of house of one Jaiswal.
They beat up Prabhakar and after Prabhakar died, lifted the body and threw it into a well.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.285/98 on 11th June, 1999 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to three years R.I. He appealed to the High Court against the conviction.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 324
