Bombay High Court Partially Allows Appeal in Rioting and Attempt to Murder Case — Conviction Under Sections 148, 307, 326, 323, 452 IPC Modified. Court finds that while unlawful assembly and grievous hurt are proved, the charge of attempt to murder is not made out due to lack of intention to cause death.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 103
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from an incident on 18th March 1997 at Gadge Nagar, Akola, where the appellants, Sk. Kalu Sk. Ibrahim, Sk. Salim @ Shaikhji Sk. Ibrahim, and Sabirsha Mubaraksha, along with others, were involved in a violent altercation. The prosecution case, based on the evidence of injured witnesses Radhesham Shrivas (PW1), Sunil Ambhore (PW2), and Devanand Jadhav (PW3), was that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims with weapons like sticks and a knife, causing grievous injuries. The incident began when Devanand's bicycle accidentally dashed against a Luna driven by accused Sk. Annu, leading to an exchange of words. Later, the appellants, along with others, armed with weapons, went to the house of Radhesham and assaulted him and his family members. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 149, 307, 326, 323, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench heard the matter. The court examined the evidence of the injured witnesses, which it found credible and consistent. The court noted that the injuries inflicted were grievous but not on vital parts, and there was no evidence of intention to cause death. Therefore, the court held that the offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was not made out and converted it to Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons). The court upheld the convictions under Sections 148, 326, 323, and 452 IPC, but set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC. The sentences were modified accordingly, and the appellants were directed to undergo the sentences already undergone, as they had already served a substantial part of the sentence. The appeal was partly allowed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Sections 148, 149 IPC - The prosecution must prove that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object. In this case, the evidence of injured witnesses established that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims. The court upheld the conviction under Section 148 IPC and the vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC for the offences committed in prosecution of the common object. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Intention to Cause Death - The offence under Section 307 IPC requires an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The court found that the injuries inflicted, though grievous, were not on vital parts and there was no evidence of intention to kill. Hence, the conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside and converted to Section 326 IPC. (Paras 11-15)

C) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 326 IPC - Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons - The evidence showed that the appellants used weapons like sticks and a knife, causing grievous injuries to the victims. The court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC as the injuries were grievous and caused by dangerous weapons. (Paras 16-20)

D) Criminal Law - House Trespass - Section 452 IPC - Trespass After Preparation for Hurt - The prosecution proved that the appellants entered the house of the complainant with the intention of assaulting the inmates. The court upheld the conviction under Section 452 IPC. (Paras 21-25)

E) Evidence Law - Injured Witnesses - Credibility - Minor Contradictions - The testimony of injured witnesses is given great weight. Minor contradictions do not discredit their evidence. The court relied on the consistent evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW3 to uphold the conviction for the offences proved. (Paras 26-30)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 149, 307, 326, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside and converted to Section 326 IPC. Convictions under Sections 148, 326, 323, and 452 IPC upheld. Sentences modified to the period already undergone.

Law Points

  • Unlawful assembly
  • Common object
  • Grievous hurt
  • Attempt to murder
  • Rioting
  • House trespass
  • Appreciation of evidence
  • Injured witnesses
  • Minor contradictions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 145

Criminal Appeal No.374 of 1998

2012-07-25

A.P. Bhangale, J.

Shri H.R. Gadhia for Appellant, Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.P.P. for Respondent/State

Sk. Kalu Sk. Ibrahim, Sk. Salim @ Shaikhji Sk. Ibrahim, Sabirsha Mubaraksha

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under Indian Penal Code including rioting, attempt to murder, grievous hurt, and house trespass.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal or reduction of sentence.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the trial court and appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 149, 307, 326, 323, and 452 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months to 5 years and fine.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable? Whether the evidence of injured witnesses is credible? Whether the common object of unlawful assembly is proved?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence is unreliable and there are contradictions. Respondent/State argued that the injured witnesses are credible and the conviction is correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The offence under Section 307 IPC requires intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In the absence of such intention and injuries not on vital parts, the conviction under Section 307 cannot be sustained. However, the evidence of injured witnesses establishes the common object of unlawful assembly and the commission of offences under Sections 148, 326, 323, and 452 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 16/10/1998, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in a Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1997, whereby the original accused were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 148,149, 307, 326, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for various durations of 3 months to 5 years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.500/ to 1000/ for various offences. The Facts, in nutshell, are as under : Injured witnesses Radhesham Shrivas (PW1), Sunil Ambhore (PW2), Devanand Jadhav (PW3), resident of Village Gadge Nagar, Akola knew each other as also the accused.

Procedural History

The trial court (IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola) convicted the appellants on 16/10/1998 in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1997. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.374 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The appeal was reserved on 18.7.2012 and judgment pronounced on 25.7.2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 148, 149, 307, 326, 323, 452
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Sole Witness Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was set aside as the sole eyewitness's account was deem...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Compounder for Administering Poison to Doctor Under Section 328 IPC. Circumstantial Evidence of False Denial of Strychnine Stock and Two Packets with Different Substances Established Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.