High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Acquits Three Accused in Attempt to Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony of Injured Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 307, 326, 427, 148 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from an incident where the complainant, Khawaja Iqbaluddin (PW1), alleged that on 25th September 2003, at around 8:30 p.m., while he was sitting in front of his shop, the three appellants along with three others (who were acquitted) formed an unlawful assembly and attacked him with swords and sticks, causing grievous injuries. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 307, 326, and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC, sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction in the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW1, the injured witness. The court noted several inconsistencies and contradictions in PW1's testimony, including discrepancies regarding the number of assailants, the weapons used, and the sequence of events. The court also found that the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the nature of injuries as described by PW1. Other prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Injured Witness - Testimony of injured witness must be scrutinized with care and if found unreliable, conviction cannot be based solely on it - The court held that the testimony of PW1, the injured complainant, was inconsistent and not corroborated by other evidence, hence unreliable (Paras 10-15).

B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Ingredients - To constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, there must be an act done with intent or knowledge to cause death - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent or knowledge beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 16-20).

C) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Section 149 IPC - Common Object - Mere presence does not attract vicarious liability unless common object is proved - The court held that the prosecution did not establish that the appellants shared a common object to commit the alleged offences (Paras 21-25).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 307, 326, and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.

Law Points

  • Appreciation of evidence
  • Injured witness testimony
  • Corroboration
  • Benefit of doubt
  • Section 307 IPC
  • Section 326 IPC
  • Section 427 IPC
  • Section 148 IPC
  • Section 149 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (10) 22

Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2005

2012-10-23

Shrihari P. Davare

Mr. H.F. Pawar (holding for Mr. A.H. Kapadia) for appellants, Mr. D.V. Tele (APP) for respondent

Gazi Saduddin @ Pappu s/o. Gazi Zaheer, Syed Ishtiyaq @ Baba s/o. Syed Jamal, Hussain Chaus s/o. Munna Chaus

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 148, 307, 326, and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants and acquitted co-accused nos.4 to 6

Issues

Whether the testimony of the injured witness (PW1) is reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction? Whether the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 307, 326, 427 read with Section 149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the trial court erred in relying on the unreliable testimony of PW1, which was full of contradictions and not corroborated by other evidence. Respondent argued that the injured witness's testimony is credible and the conviction is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The testimony of an injured witness must be scrutinized with care; if it is found to be unreliable and lacking corroboration, the conviction cannot be sustained. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard Adv. Mr. H.F. Pawar, holding for Adv. Mr. A.H. Kapadia, for the appellants, and learned APP Mr. D.V. Tele for the respondent. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants i.e. original accused nos.1 to 3...

Procedural History

The appellants were tried in Sessions Case No. 12/2004 before the IVth Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who convicted them on 20th January 2005. They appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 148, 307, 326, 427, 149
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Acquits Three Accused in Attempt to Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony of Injured Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 307, 326, 427, 148 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove gui...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appellant in Property Title Dispute Due to Failure to Prove Ownership. The plaintiff's suit for possession was rejected as they could not establish title to the disputed land, with appellate courts re-evaluating evidence under...