Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 18.3.2008 (Holi day) where the victim Rakesh Mankar, an 18-year-old student, sustained burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that appellant no.2 Alka Mankar threw a burning kerosene lamp at him after an exchange of abuses, causing his terricot shirt to catch fire, resulting in 25-30% burns on his chest, abdomen, and hands. The appellants (Anant Nathu Mankar, Alka Anant Mankar, and Pandurang Keshav Jhunjarrao) were charged under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial court convicted them, and they appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the victim (PW-1), medical evidence from Dr. Dhananjay Oswal (PW-2) and Dr. Vikram More (PW-6), and other witnesses. The court found significant inconsistencies: the victim initially stated he could not see who threw the lamp due to darkness, but later identified appellant no.2; the medical certificate indicated burns from a stove burst, not a lamp; and the victim's own testimony was contradictory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Inconsistent Evidence - The prosecution alleged that appellant no.2 threw a burning kerosene lamp at the victim, causing 25-30% burns. However, the victim's testimony and medical evidence were inconsistent regarding the manner of incident and nature of injuries. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants were entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Identification - Doubtful Identification - The victim initially stated that the lamp was thrown by appellant no.2, but later admitted that he could not see who threw it due to darkness. The court held that such doubtful identification cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Contradiction - The medical certificate mentioned burns caused by a stove burst, which contradicted the prosecution's case of a lamp thrown. The court noted that this inconsistency weakened the prosecution's case. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are guilty of offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2008 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Doubtful identification
- Medical evidence contradiction
- Acquittal in attempt to murder
