Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an incident on 9th September 2009 at about 4:00 pm when the victim, Sayyed Javed Abdul Hamid (PW1), a driver, was allegedly assaulted by the appellants. According to the prosecution, the appellants Maruti Bhaurao Phad and Nitin Pradip Khairnar, along with another accused Bhushan Bhagwan Bacchav, attacked the victim with a chopper and robbed him of a mobile phone. The victim was the driver of a corporator, Sayyad Mushir Muniruddin (PW7). The prosecution alleged that Maruti Phad assaulted the victim with a chopper on his stomach, while Nitin Khairnar caught hold of him from behind. The victim was taken to the hospital and treated. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 307 IPC and also convicted Maruti Phad under Sections 392 and 419 IPC. The appellants appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the injured witness (PW1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The medical evidence showed that the victim sustained only a simple injury, and the doctor did not opine that the injury was life-threatening. The other prosecution witnesses also turned hostile or did not support the prosecution. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, as there was no intention or knowledge to cause death, and the injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The court also found that the conviction under Sections 392 and 419 IPC was based on weak evidence, as the witnesses turned hostile. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction set aside - The appellants were convicted under Section 307 IPC for allegedly assaulting the victim with a chopper. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 307 IPC as the medical evidence showed only a simple injury and the injured witness turned hostile. The court emphasized that for an offence under Section 307, the intention or knowledge to cause death must be established, and the injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Since the doctor did not opine that the injury was life-threatening, the conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 2-15) B) Criminal Law - Robbery and Cheating - Sections 392 and 419 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction set aside - The appellant Maruti Bhaurao Phad was also convicted under Sections 392 and 419 IPC for allegedly robbing a mobile phone and impersonating. The High Court found that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and there was no independent evidence to prove the robbery or impersonation. The court held that the conviction based on weak and inconsistent evidence cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-15) C) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Effect on Prosecution Case - The injured witness (PW1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The High Court held that when the star witness turns hostile, the prosecution case becomes weak and the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court noted that the other witnesses also did not support the prosecution, and the medical evidence contradicted the claim of attempt to murder. (Paras 8-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other offences is sustainable based on the evidence on record, particularly when the injured witness turned hostile and medical evidence did not support the charge of attempt to murder.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention or knowledge to cause death
- medical evidence must indicate injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
- conviction cannot be based on sole testimony of interested witness without corroboration
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and evidence is inconsistent
