Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal against conviction under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, Dipak s/o Ramaji Kurwade and Ahankar s/o Champat Dabhekar, were convicted by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No.123/1997 for attempting to murder Ishwar Chudaman Usarbarse on 29.1.1996. The prosecution alleged that the appellants assaulted the victim with knives on his chest and near his coccyx bone, stating that the victim had broken their tins of liquor. The victim was admitted to Rural Hospital, Arvi, and an FIR was registered. The police investigated, seized bloodstained earth, recovered knives from the appellants, and sent samples for analysis. The trial court convicted both appellants and sentenced them to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000 each. The appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the victim (PW7) in his cross-examination stated that only one person assaulted him, contradicting the FIR which named two. The victim's brother (PW6), an eyewitness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The panch witnesses for recovery of weapons also turned hostile. The medical evidence showed only one injury on the chest and one on the back, but the victim claimed multiple blows. The High Court found the identification of the appellants doubtful and the evidence inconsistent. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, 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 if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Sections 307, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on doubtful identification and inconsistent evidence - The appellants were convicted for attempting to murder the victim by knife assault. The High Court found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent regarding the number of assailants and the role of each accused. The medical evidence did not corroborate the exact number of injuries. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants giving them benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Identification of Accused - Inconsistencies in Testimony - The victim initially named only one accused in the FIR but later implicated two. The court noted that the victim's brother, an eyewitness, did not support the prosecution case. The recovery of weapons was not credible as panch witnesses turned hostile. The court held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellants to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Identification of accused
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
