Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Jaipal S/o Bhimrao Meshram and Subhash S/o Maroti Safekar, were convicted by the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Session Trial 94 of 1998 for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 3,000 each. The prosecution case was that on 22.3.1998, the appellants along with another accused assaulted Manoj Rangari with a scissor blade and a stick, causing bleeding injuries on his abdomen. The incident allegedly arose from a prior altercation where accused Jaipal had attempted to contact Disha, the daughter of complainant Namdeo Rangari. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The court noted that the prosecution case was blurred on the genesis of the incident and that the identification of the appellants was doubtful. The court observed that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and not reliable. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Benefit of Doubt - Appellants convicted for attempt to murder based on alleged assault with scissor blade and stick - Prosecution evidence found inconsistent and identification of accused doubtful - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law given the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and the doubtful identification of the accused.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellants to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Doubtful identification
- Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
