Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Achalpur, in Sessions Trial No.45 of 1997, which acquitted the respondents (Mohd. Sadiq, Mohd. Sabir, and Babbu @ Salimkha) of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 8 November 1996, between 6 pm and 7 pm, a quarrel occurred between the complainant's son Anup (PW3) and accused nos.1 and 2 over obstruction of taking she-buffaloes to a cattle pond. Later, at about 9:30 pm, the complainant Ramesh (PW1) was having tea at a hotel when the three accused arrived. According to the prosecution, accused no.3 gave a sickle blow to PW1, accused no.1 gave a knife blow on his stomach, and accused no.2 caught hold of him. PW1 screamed, and people gathered. The police recorded PW1's complaint, and he was referred to Cottage Hospital, Achalpur. The trial court acquitted all accused, leading to this appeal. The High Court heard the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the respondents. The court examined the evidence, noting that the medical evidence (PW5 Dr. Ashok Thakary) showed only one incised wound on the abdomen, contradicting the prosecution's claim of two separate blows (sickle and knife). The court also found that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel, and there was no evidence of prior meeting of minds to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC. The court held that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Section 307 r/w 34 IPC - Attempt to murder - Common intention - The State appealed against acquittal of three accused for attempt to murder. The court examined whether the prosecution proved common intention and whether the injuries were sufficient to attract Section 307. Held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention as there was no prior meeting of minds and the incident was a sudden quarrel. The medical evidence showed only one injury, contradicting the claim of multiple blows. Acquittal upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Medical evidence vs ocular testimony - Contradiction - The prosecution claimed that accused no.3 gave a sickle blow and accused no.1 gave a knife blow, but the medical evidence showed only one incised wound. The court held that such contradiction creates doubt and benefits the accused. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Common intention under Section 34 IPC - Sudden quarrel - The incident arose from a sudden quarrel over buffaloes at a cattle pond. The court held that common intention cannot be inferred from a sudden fight without prior planning. The acquittal of accused no.2 and no.3 was justified as there was no evidence of their overt acts. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No.45 of 1997 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Common intention
- Appreciation of evidence
- Medical evidence vs ocular evidence
- Benefit of doubt
