Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with two cross-appeals arising from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, Dist. Nanded in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1996. The prosecution case was that on 27 December 1993, a quarrel had occurred the previous day between the informant’s daughter and a female relative of accused no. 1. In the morning of 27 December 1993, accused no. 1 pelted a stone at informant Sopanrao (PW1) and asked why he had quarrelled with his relative. Thereafter, accused nos. 6 and 7 beat the informant with iron pipes on his legs, head, stomach and back, causing him to fall. The remaining accused assaulted him with stones, iron pipes and sticks, causing bleeding injuries. When the informant’s wife (PW2), daughter (PW3) and sons (PW4 and PW5) rushed to rescue him, they were also assaulted. Villagers intervened. The informant lodged a report at Markhel Police Station the same day. Medical examination revealed ten injuries on the informant, including a fracture of the lower end of the left femur. Injuries were also found on his wife and sons. The police seized blood-stained clothes and weapons after investigation. A charge sheet was initially filed under sections 143, 147, 148, 337, 325, 323 read with 149 IPC and section 37(1) read with 135 Bombay Police Act. On the State’s application, the High Court in revision directed addition of section 307 IPC, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges under sections 143, 147, 148, 307/149, 337/149, 323/149 IPC and section 37(1)/135 Bombay Police Act. After trial, the court convicted accused nos. 1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 under sections 143, 147, 325/149 IPC and acquitted them and the remaining accused of all other charges. Aggrieved, the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1999 seeking enhancement of conviction to include section 307 IPC and other offences, while the five convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1999 challenging their conviction. The State argued that the trial court should have convicted under section 307 read with section 34 IPC given the injuries and medical evidence. The defence argued that the incident never took place and the injuries were from a bullock cart accident; that the evidence was contradictory and that the number of persons made identification unreliable; and that the seizure of weapons after three months and eleven days created doubt. The High Court heard both sides on 16 June 2017 and reserved judgment. The provided judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the court’s reasoning or final decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Sections 307 read with 149, 34 IPC – Conviction and Acquittal – The State appealed against acquittal of the respondents for attempt to murder, arguing that the trial court failed to appreciate medical evidence and witness testimony. The defence contended that the incident did not occur as alleged and that injuries resulted from an accident, and further that identification in a mob was unreliable. The judgment excerpt does not include the court’s final determination on these issues. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Procedure – Seizure and Investigation – Delay in Recovery – The defence highlighted that weapons were seized three months and eleven days after the incident, casting doubt on the prosecution case. The court’s ruling on this point is not provided in the available text. (Paras 2-4) C) Evidence – Identification in Mob – The accused argued that a large number of persons were present at the spot, making it impossible for witnesses to correctly identify the assailants. The excerpt ends before the court’s analysis of this evidence. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused for offences under sections 148, 307/149, 337/149, 323/149 IPC and section 37(1)/135 Bombay Police Act, and whether the conviction of accused nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 under sections 143, 147, 325/149 IPC is justified.
Law Points
- Sections 143
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 307
- 337
- 323 of Indian Penal Code
- Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of Bombay Police Act
- appeal against acquittal
- appeal against conviction
- identification in mob
- contradictions in evidence
- medical evidence
- recovery of weapons after delay
- addition of section 307 IPC on revision
