Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Santosh Bodekar, was convicted by the Sessions Court for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The prosecution case was that on 10 April 2001, the appellant threw the complainant, Pushpa Gaurkar, into a well. The complainant alleged that the appellant, a relative, had been harassing her and had threatened to kill her or her husband due to suspicion of illicit relations. On the day of the incident, while she was in a paddy field, the appellant accosted her, dragged her, and threw her into a well. She was rescued by her husband after about 2-3 hours. The appellant challenged the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, including the complainant's testimony (PW1), her husband's testimony (PW2), and medical evidence. The court found material inconsistencies: the complainant's version in the FIR differed from her deposition; the medical evidence did not support the claim of injuries consistent with being thrown into a well; and the husband's testimony was contradictory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction set aside - The appellant was convicted for attempting to murder the complainant by throwing her into a well. The High Court found the prosecution evidence inconsistent and unreliable, particularly the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence. 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 - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimony - The court noted material contradictions between the complainant's version in the FIR and her deposition, and between her testimony and the medical evidence. Such inconsistencies rendered the prosecution case doubtful. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 23-7-2004 in Sessions Trial 13/2002 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- Attempt to murder
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Prosecution failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
