Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed by original accused persons, Raju @ Pintya Hivrale and Mahendra @ Mandya Telgande, against a common judgment and order dated 8th February 2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 211/2002. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years each with a fine of Rs. 500 each, and in default, to suffer RI for six months. Additionally, accused Mahendra was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for two years with a fine of Rs. 500, in default to suffer RI for two months. The prosecution case was that on 7th February 2002, at about 9:30 pm, the accused assaulted PW3-Anil Sagne with a knife on his right arm, and later assaulted PW1-Mohan Giri on his chest and hip. PW2-Vasant Sagne, brother of PW3, witnessed the incident. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of inconsistent evidence and doubtful identification. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the role of each accused and the manner of assault. The court noted that the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the ocular testimony. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and granted them the benefit of doubt. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction set aside - Prosecution case based on testimony of injured witnesses - Inconsistencies in evidence regarding role of each accused and manner of assault - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-12). B) Criminal Law - Hurt by Dangerous Weapon - Section 324 IPC - Conviction set aside - Evidence of injured witness not corroborated by medical evidence - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on uncorroborated testimony (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 8th February 2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 211/2002 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Criminal Appeal
- Acquittal
- Benefit of Doubt
- Identification of Accused
- Inconsistent Testimony
