Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prasanjit Krishna Sahis, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Daman, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.2,000. The case arose from an incident on 13th January 2012, when the informant, Manu Kumbkaran, alleged that the appellant stabbed him with a knife on his stomach following a quarrel over a stolen mobile phone. The informant claimed that after the stabbing, he managed to lock the appellant inside the room and was taken to the hospital by the landlord, Navin Patel. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case. The injured witness's testimony was not corroborated by the medical evidence, which indicated that the injury was a simple incised wound and not necessarily life-threatening. Moreover, the independent witnesses, including the landlord, did not support the prosecution's version. The court also noted that the identity of the assailant was doubtful as the incident occurred in darkness and the informant's testimony was inconsistent. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Conviction set aside - The appellant was convicted for attempting to murder the informant by stabbing him with a knife. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the testimony of the injured witness and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses. The medical evidence did not support the alleged manner of assault. Held that the conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-13) B) Evidence Law - Injured Witness - Credibility - The testimony of an injured witness is generally considered reliable, but when it suffers from material contradictions and is not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses, it cannot form the sole basis for conviction. The court noted that the injured witness's version was inconsistent with the medical report regarding the nature and timing of the injury. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's conclusion was not supported by the evidence on record. (Paras 1-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25th June 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Daman, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2012 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death or knowledge that act would cause death
- Evidence of injured witness must be corroborated by medical evidence
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution case suffers from inconsistencies and contradictions
