Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Jayashram Pardeshi, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default imprisonment of six months. The conviction was based on an incident that occurred on 22nd April 2010, where the complainant, Mangesh Ram Ajore Pardeshi (PW1), alleged that the appellant and another accused (who was acquitted) attacked him with a scissor, causing injuries on his back and head. The prosecution's case was that PW1 was running a Bhishi scheme for tailors, and on the day of the incident, he had gone to Clover Centre to collect money. A verbal altercation ensued between PW1 and the appellant regarding the Bhishi amount. According to the prosecution, the appellant and the co-accused went to PW1's shop, and the appellant took a scissor from the drawer and inflicted injuries on PW1. PW1 was admitted to Sasoon Hospital, and his statement was recorded, leading to the registration of Crime No.67 of 2010. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No.545 of 2010. The trial court convicted the appellant, leading to the present appeal. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW1, and found material inconsistencies. PW1 initially stated that the appellant and the co-accused attacked him, but during cross-examination, he admitted that he could not identify who actually stabbed him. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt. The court also observed that the medical evidence did not conclusively link the injuries to the appellant. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on doubtful identification and inconsistent evidence - The appellant was convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from inconsistencies regarding the identity of the assailant and the manner of occurrence. The injured witness (PW1) gave contradictory statements about who inflicted the injuries. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-11) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimony - Benefit of Doubt - The court examined the evidence of PW1 and found material contradictions regarding the identity of the person who attacked him. PW1 initially stated that the appellant and another accused attacked him, but later admitted that he could not identify who actually stabbed him. The court held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- Attempt to murder
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Identification of accused
