Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the judgment and order of the II Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 83/2004 dated 19/12/2005, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The prosecution case was that on 11th May 2004 at about 7:00 p.m., the injured Subhash (PW5) and his wife Kantabai (PW4) were in their courtyard in village Belmandali, District Amravati. The accused persons, who were in a drunken condition, suspected that the couple were discussing them and hurled abuses. The accused then allegedly attacked Subhash with weapons, causing injuries. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the testimony of the injured witness and his wife. However, on appeal, the High Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and contradictory. The injured witness (PW5) and his wife (PW4) gave conflicting versions regarding the number of accused, the weapons used, and the manner of assault. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC, particularly the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The court also found that there was no evidence of common intention among the accused as required under Section 34 IPC. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants on benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and that there was a common intention among the accused. In the present case, the evidence of the injured witness and other witnesses was inconsistent and contradictory regarding the role of each accused and the nature of the attack. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence, and the appellants were entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. (Paras 2-5) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies and Contradictions - The testimony of the injured witness (PW5) and his wife (PW4) contained material contradictions regarding the number of accused, the weapons used, and the manner of assault. The court held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt, and the benefit must go to the accused. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
- Section 34 IPC requires common intention
- acquittal on benefit of doubt due to inconsistent evidence
