Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mogallappa Pentappa Komadi, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The case arose from an incident on 12th January 2012 at about 7:00 p.m., where the appellant along with co-accused Babu and Shivaji allegedly abused the father of the complainant, Prabhu Sankole, due to animosity over the father being the head of the Puriyajang Community. During a verbal altercation that turned violent, co-accused Shivaji assaulted Prabhu with kicks and fist blows, and the appellant along with Karappa held Prabhu's hands while Babu inflicted a knife blow on his chest, causing grievous injuries. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Crime No. 7 of 2012 under Sections 307, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant, leading to the present appeal before the Bombay High Court. The legal issue was whether the appellant's act of holding the victim's hands constituted an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC with common intention under Section 34 IPC. The appellant argued that his role was minimal and there was no intention to cause death. The State supported the conviction. The High Court, after perusing the evidence, found that the conviction rested on the testimony of only three out of seven witnesses and that the appellant's role was limited to holding the victim's hands. The court held that there was no evidence of common intention to cause death and that the appellant did not inflict the fatal injury. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Common Intention - The appellant was convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC for holding the victim's hands while co-accused inflicted a knife blow. The court held that the appellant's role was only to hold hands and there was no evidence of common intention to cause death. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-4) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistent Testimony - The conviction rested on the evidence of three witnesses out of seven. The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution case and held that the appellant's limited role did not attract Section 307 IPC. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires pre-arranged plan and active participation
- Acquittal when evidence is inconsistent and role is minor
