Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 07.09.1995 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 97/1992, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The prosecution case was that the complainant Shantaram Bavaskar had given Rs.85,000/- to the accused, who had a jewellery shop in Kopargaon. On 28.11.1990, the complainant demanded repayment, and the accused promised part payment on 04.12.1990. On that day, the complainant went to the accused's shop but was told he was unwell and at home. The complainant went to the accused's house at Teen Chari location around 10.00 a.m. When the complainant demanded money, the accused allegedly stabbed him with a knife. The complainant ran away, leaving his bicycle and shoes, and later sought medical help. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence inconsistent and unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence, and there were material contradictions. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's acquittal was justified. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Prosecution case based on sole testimony of complainant with inconsistencies and lack of corroboration - Medical evidence not supporting the alleged stabbing - Held that the trial court's acquittal was proper and no interference warranted (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the respondent-accused.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- benefit of doubt
- prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt
- inconsistencies in evidence
- no corroboration of medical evidence
