Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Navalchand Motiram Jadhav, was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for attempting to murder his cousin brother Vasanta Dola Jadhav, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. He was acquitted of other charges under the Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act. The incident allegedly occurred when the accused assaulted Vasanta with a weapon. The prosecution examined the injured complainant and other witnesses, but their versions of the spot of incident varied. The medical evidence indicated a simple injury, inconsistent with the alleged assault. The accused raised a defence that Vasanta's head dashed against a tin roof, which the court found to be probabilised. The High Court, hearing the appeal, noted that the prosecution failed to prove the spot panchanama and that the medical and ocular evidence were contradictory. The court held that the accused had more than probabilised his defence, and the prosecution could not rebut it. Consequently, the conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside, and the accused was acquitted. The judgment was delivered by Justice Rohit B. Deo on 10 October 2017.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence - The prosecution failed to prove the spot of incident consistently, and the medical evidence did not support the alleged assault with a weapon - Held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 5-8).
B) Evidence Law - Probabilised Defence - Burden on prosecution - The accused successfully probabilised the defence that the injury was caused by dashing against a tin roof, which the prosecution could not rebut - Held that the conviction is unsustainable (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable given the inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and the probabilised defence of accidental injury.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside. Appellant acquitted. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence
- benefit of doubt
- probabilised defence
- failure to prove spot panchanama
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 126
Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2000
Shri Pushkar Ghare for appellant, Shri H.R. Dhumale for respondent
Navalchand Motiram Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the judgment of conviction dated 07-11-2000 in Sessions Case 200/1998 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to five years RI and fine of Rs.1,000; acquitted under Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable given the inconsistencies in prosecution evidence?
Whether the accused has probabilised the defence of accidental injury?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the judgment is against weight of evidence, prosecution failed to prove spot panchanama, witnesses gave different versions of spot, medical evidence inconsistent with ocular evidence, and accused probabilised defence of head dashing against tin roof.
Respondent argued that the judgment does not suffer from any infirmity in fact or law.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove the spot of incident consistently, and the medical evidence did not support the alleged assault. The accused successfully probabilised the defence that the injury was caused by dashing against a tin roof, which the prosecution could not rebut. Hence, the conviction is unsustainable and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
Concededly, the injured Vasanta Dola Jadhav and the accused are cousin brothers.
The learned Counsel for the accused submits that the accused has more than probablised the defence that P.W.1 Vasanta suffered injury since his head dashed against a tin roof.
The medical evidence is totally inconsistent with the ocular evidence.
Procedural History
Trial in Sessions Case 200/1998 before IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, resulted in conviction under Section 307 IPC on 07-11-2000. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2000 in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Judgment reserved on 21-08-2017 and pronounced on 10-10-2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307
- Arms Act: 4, 25
- Maharashtra Police Act: 37(1)(3), 135
