Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sau. Suman W/o Vasantrao Mogre, was convicted by the Sessions Court for attempting to murder her husband by pushing him into a well and throwing stones at him. The incident allegedly occurred on 20 July 2001 when the couple went to their field for agricultural work. According to the complainant, after lunch, the appellant asked him to fetch water, but refused to drink it, claiming it was dirty. She then went to answer the call of nature and returned, asking him to fetch water again as she was menstruating. When the complainant bent to fetch water, the appellant pushed him into the well. He managed to catch an iron pipe and shouted for help. A passerby, Ramdas Dhurve, heard his cries and rescued him with the help of others. The complainant lodged a report, and the appellant was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted her, sentencing her to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence. The prosecution examined only three witnesses: the complainant (P.W.1), the rescuer Ramdas Dhurve (P.W.2), and the investigating officer (P.W.3). The court noted that the complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. P.W.2, Ramdas Dhurve, stated that he heard shouts and saw the complainant in the well, but he did not see the appellant at the spot. The medical evidence showed only minor injuries, which were inconsistent with the alleged assault by stones. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's counsel argued that the complainant wanted a divorce and was ill-treating her, which was not rebutted. The court held that the conviction was based on weak evidence and gave the appellant the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole testimony of complainant - The court examined whether the conviction of the appellant for attempting to murder her husband by pushing him into a well and throwing stones was sustainable. The court found that the complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Interested Witness - Corroboration - The court considered the value of the testimony of the complainant, who was an interested witness. The court held that while the testimony of an interested witness can be the basis of conviction, it must be corroborated by independent evidence. In this case, the lack of corroboration and inconsistencies in the evidence led to doubt. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Benefit of Doubt - The court reiterated the principle that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused should be adopted. The court found that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was given the benefit of doubt. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Attempted murder
- Section 307 IPC
- conviction based on sole testimony of interested witness
- need for corroboration
- benefit of doubt
- acquittal
