Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Bhatusing Virangya Ravtale, Kailas Bhatusing Ravtale, and Vishwanath Bhatusing Ravtale, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, for offences punishable under Sections 304(I), 308, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The case arose from an incident on 08.01.2014 where the appellants allegedly assaulted Vinod (the deceased) with sticks after a dispute over the return of Pramilabai, the daughter-in-law of appellant No.1, to her matrimonial home. The prosecution claimed that the appellants called Vinod to their house, questioned his father's intervention, and then assaulted him brutally, causing injuries that led to his death. The trial court convicted all three appellants based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, including P.W.2 Nitesh and P.W.9 Akhiraj, and the dying declaration of Vinod. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found significant inconsistencies. The eyewitnesses gave contradictory accounts regarding the number of assailants and the specific roles of each appellant. The medical evidence did not fully corroborate the ocular testimony, particularly regarding the weapon used. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC, as there was no evidence of prior concert or active participation by all appellants. The dying declaration was also found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Section 304(I) IPC - Common Intention - Conviction set aside due to inconsistencies in evidence regarding the number of assailants and the role of each appellant - Held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants shared common intention to cause death (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony - Contradictions between ocular and medical evidence regarding the weapon used and the manner of assault - Held that such discrepancies create reasonable doubt in favor of the accused (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Law - Section 34 IPC - Common Intention - Mere presence at the scene does not attract liability under Section 34 IPC without proof of prior concert or active participation - Held that the prosecution must establish a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304(I), 308, 323 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, in Sessions Case No. 20/2014 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
- Section 304 IPC
- Section 308 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Common Intention
- Appreciation of evidence
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt
