Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed by Parasram Ramchandra Chaudhari (original accused no.5) and Arun Panjabrao Chambhare (original accused no.4) against their conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 78/2002 on 5th March 2003. They were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with default sentence of six months. The incident allegedly occurred at Dorli, Tah. Dorli, Dist. Wardha, where the appellants were accused of causing hurt to the deceased using dangerous weapons. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of PW-3 Sunanda Chapale, the wife of the deceased, who claimed to be an eye witness and lodged the FIR (Exh.36). The appellants argued that the trial court failed to consider discrepancies in her testimony, and that no weapons were recovered at their instance, indicating their non-involvement. The State supported the conviction, arguing that the witness was natural and reliable. The High Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, found that the testimony of PW-3 was inconsistent and unreliable. The court noted that the discrepancies in her evidence made it unsafe to base a conviction. Additionally, the absence of recovery of weapons from the appellants further weakened the prosecution case. Consequently, the court allowed both appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Assault - Section 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole eye witness - The appellants were convicted for causing hurt by dangerous weapons. The High Court found that the testimony of PW-3 Sunanda Chapale, the sole eye witness and wife of the deceased, contained material discrepancies and inconsistencies, rendering it unreliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, especially as no weapons were recovered at their instance. The conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence Law - Witness Testimony - Reliability of Sole Eye Witness - The court examined the evidence of PW-3 and found contradictions regarding the role of the appellants. The witness's testimony was not corroborated by other evidence, and the lack of weapon recovery further weakened the case. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the testimony of the sole eye witness and other evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 78/2002 on 5th March 2003 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 324 IPC requires reliable evidence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
- Testimony of sole eye witness must be cogent and consistent
- Recovery of weapon is not mandatory but absence weakens prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution evidence is unreliable
