Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Kisan, Shalikram, Ramesh, and Ananta, were convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, for offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 337, and 341 read with 34 IPC. The incident occurred on 06.01.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. when the complainant Tulsabai, her father Sitaram, and brother Rambhau were carrying a bullock-cart loaded with fodder. The accused allegedly pelted stones and attacked them with sticks, causing injuries. The trial court sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, including five years for attempt to murder. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The medical evidence showed only simple injuries, and no injury was on a vital part, negating the intention to cause death. The witnesses contradicted each other on the weapons used and the role of each accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC but maintained the conviction under Sections 324, 323, 337, and 341 IPC, reducing the sentences to the period already undergone. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Intention to Cause Death - The prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would cause death; mere causing of injuries is insufficient. In the present case, the medical evidence showed only simple injuries and no injury was on a vital part, thus the offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony - The testimony of the complainant and other witnesses contained material contradictions regarding the manner of assault and the weapons used. The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 8-9) C) Criminal Law - Identification of Accused - Doubtful Identification - The witnesses failed to clearly identify which accused caused which injury, and there was no independent witness to corroborate the incident. The court found the identification unreliable. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307, 324, 323, 337, 341 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 307 IPC is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of that offence. The conviction under Sections 324, 323, 337, 341 read with 34 IPC is maintained, but the sentences are reduced to the period already undergone. The appellants are ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death or knowledge that act would cause death
- medical evidence must corroborate the nature of injuries
- benefit of doubt arises from inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of independent witnesses
