Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Attempted Murder Case Due to Material Contradictions and Doubtful Identification. Conviction under Sections 307 and 506(II) IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Vikrant Vilas Mane, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for offences under Sections 307 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and five years respectively. The case arose from an incident on 14th January 2013, where the complainant, Sandip Dashrath Dherange, alleged that the appellant stabbed him with a knife after a dispute over a handloan of Rs.50,000. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimonies of eyewitnesses PW2 (complainant) and PW3 (Jitu Joshi). The court found material contradictions between their versions regarding the manner of stabbing and the presence of other witnesses. The identification of the appellant was also doubtful as the incident occurred in a crowded area and the appellant was known to the witnesses. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The criminal application for bail was disposed of as infructuous.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction set aside due to material contradictions in evidence of eyewitnesses and doubtful identification of accused - Held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-13).

B) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(II) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction set aside as the alleged threat was not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction (Paras 1-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law given the material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the doubtful identification of the accused.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Criminal application disposed of as infructuous.

Law Points

  • Benefit of doubt
  • Material contradictions
  • Identification of accused
  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt
  • Section 307 IPC
  • Section 506(II) IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 330

Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2016 alongwith Criminal Application No.1125 of 2017

2019-03-06

Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav

2019:BHC-AS:7794

Ms. Gayatri Gokhale, Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar

Vikrant Vilas Mane

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for attempt to murder and criminal intimidation.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 307 and 506(II) IPC.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicted the appellant on 27th October 2015.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable given material contradictions in evidence? Whether the conviction under Section 506(II) IPC is sustainable?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the prosecution evidence was full of contradictions and the identification was doubtful. State argued that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Material contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses and doubtful identification of the accused entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant herein is convicted vide judgment and order dated 27th October, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506(II) of Indian Penal Code. The court found material contradictions between their versions regarding the manner of stabbing and the presence of other witnesses. The identification of the appellant was also doubtful as the incident occurred in a crowded area and the appellant was known to the witnesses.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 27th October 2015. He appealed to the High Court. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 6th March 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 506(II)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Injunction in Trademark Infringement Suit — Non-Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) CPC Renders Injunction Invalid. The court held that the trial court's order issuing suit summons and notice...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Attempted Murder Case Due to Material Contradictions and Doubtful Identification. Conviction under Sections 307 and 506(II) IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.