Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 31.05.1999 where a quarrel between Sachin and Nitin Bachke escalated. The complainant Prafulla Kale and his parents rushed to the spot. Accused Vikram Bachake (accused no.1) was carrying a sword and gave a blow on the head of Prafulla's father, causing him to fall unconscious with a bleeding injury. Another accused Anil assaulted with an iron rod. The trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 307 IPC and acquitted others of major charges but convicted them under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. The appellate court upheld the conviction of accused no.1 under Section 307 IPC but set aside the acquittal of other accused for offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, convicting them accordingly. Accused no.1 filed a revision against the confirmation of his conviction under Section 307 IPC, and the original complainant filed a revision against the appellate court's decision to set aside the acquittal of other accused for major charges. The High Court upheld the conviction of accused no.1 under Section 307 IPC, finding that the medical evidence supported the dangerous nature of the injury. However, the High Court set aside the appellate court's conviction of other accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, as there was no evidence of common intention for attempt to murder. The High Court restored the trial court's acquittal of other accused for major offences but maintained their conviction for minor offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Conviction upheld - Accused no.1 inflicted a sword blow on the head of the complainant's father, causing a bleeding injury and unconsciousness - Medical evidence confirmed the injury was dangerous to life - Held that the trial court and appellate court correctly convicted accused no.1 under Section 307 IPC (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Acquittal of co-accused - The appellate court set aside the acquittal of other accused for offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC - However, the High Court found that the evidence did not establish common intention for attempt to murder - Held that the appellate court erred in convicting them under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but their conviction for minor offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was justified (Paras 6-8). C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - The High Court examined the correctness of the appellate court's order setting aside acquittal - Held that the revisional court can interfere only if there is a grave miscarriage of justice or perversity - In this case, the appellate court's order convicting co-accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside as it was not supported by evidence (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused no.1 under Section 307 IPC is sustainable and whether the acquittal of other accused for offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision of accused no.1 (Cri.Rev.Appln.No.145/2004) and upheld his conviction under Section 307 IPC. The High Court allowed the revision of the complainant (Cri.Rev.Appln.No.349/2004) in part, setting aside the appellate court's conviction of other accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and restoring the trial court's acquittal for major offences, but maintaining their conviction for minor offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- attempt to murder
- common intention
- Section 34 IPC
- conviction upheld
- acquittal set aside
- revision against acquittal
- scope of revisional jurisdiction
