Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Case No.10/2017 on 23.02.2018. The appellants were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The prosecution case was that on 11.05.2016, during a Sandal procession of Mastan Shah Baba in village Ansing, a commotion occurred near Gandhi square. The first informant Gajanan Kute (PW6) alleged that accused no.1 Syed Azhar Syed Kalandar assaulted Chintaman Dange (PW7) with a knife. The trial court convicted all three accused based on the testimony of the injured witness and other eyewitnesses. However, the High Court found material inconsistencies in the evidence. The injured witness (PW7) could not identify the accused who assaulted him, and the other eyewitnesses gave contradictory versions about the role of each accused. The court noted that the FIR itself did not mention the names of accused no.2 and 3, and their involvement was introduced later. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Identification of Accused - The prosecution case rested on the testimony of injured witness and other eyewitnesses, but their evidence was inconsistent regarding the role of each accused and the manner of assault. The court held that when the evidence is contradictory and unreliable, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies - The court noted material contradictions between the FIR and the deposition of witnesses, and between the testimonies of different witnesses. Such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. (Paras 4-8) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - The court held that in criminal jurisprudence, if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused should be adopted. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence the conviction was set aside. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Case No.10/2017 on 23.02.2018 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- Attempt to murder
- Identification of accused
- Inconsistent evidence
- Benefit of doubt
