Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Abhijit @ Abhay Koche, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Bhandara for offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. He appealed against his conviction. The case arose from an incident on 7 April 2016, where the victim Mukesh Bhaisare was assaulted with a knife by the appellant and his juvenile cousin Anda Koche. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had a motive due to a previous marriage proposal rejection and divorce of the appellant's sister. The victim sustained injuries on his head, chest, and left thigh, and a knife blade was thrust into his thigh. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307 IPC and 3 years under the Arms Act. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC, particularly the intention to cause death. The doctor's evidence did not state that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The recovery of the knife was not properly proved, and the prosecution did not establish that the appellant possessed the knife without a license. The court also noted inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and other witnesses. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Intention to Cause Death - The prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. In the present case, the injuries were not on vital parts and the doctor did not opine that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court held that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. (Paras 10-12) B) Arms Act - Possession of Knife - Section 4 read with Section 25 Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Proof of Possession - The prosecution failed to prove that the knife was recovered from the appellant's possession and that he did not have a license. The recovery panchnama was not proved by independent witnesses. The court held that the conviction under the Arms Act is unsustainable. (Paras 13-14) C) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimony - The evidence of the victim and other witnesses was inconsistent regarding the manner of assault and the role of the appellant. The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the benefit must go to the accused. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the intention to cause death of the victim under Section 307 IPC and that he possessed the knife without license under the Arms Act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death
- mere injury not sufficient
- conviction under Arms Act requires proof of possession without license
