Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Culpable Homicide Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Assault and Natural Death Possibility. Medical evidence ruled out assault and suggested natural death, and FIR did not name accused as assailants, leading to acquittal under Section 304 Part II IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Vishal Tiwari, Rahul Neware, and Sachin Waghmare, were convicted by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur in Sessions Trial 200 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500 each. They appealed against the conviction. The case arose from the death of Ramraj Kulmethe, allegedly due to an assault by the accused. The prosecution examined four witnesses, including PW1 Bablu Bhalavi and PW2 Gopalkrushna Kulmethe (uncle of deceased and informant), and PW3 Robbin Judawan who turned hostile. PW4 Dr. Gawande, who conducted the autopsy, testified that there were no external injuries and that the death could be natural. The FIR (Exh 23) lodged promptly did not name accused Rahul and Sachin as assailants. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the medical evidence ruled out death due to assault, and the ocular evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the deceased. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on alleged assault - Medical evidence ruled out death due to assault and suggested natural death - No external injuries found - Eye witness turned hostile - FIR did not name accused as assailants - Held that prosecution failed to prove assault beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused entitled to acquittal (Paras 4-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the deceased and that the death was caused by such assault, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.

Law Points

  • Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • Section 304 Part II IPC
  • Medical evidence overriding ocular evidence
  • Benefit of doubt
  • Acquittal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 143

Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2006

2018-02-16

Rohit B. Deo, J.

Shri R.M. Daga for appellants, Shri N.R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

Vishal s/o. Ramkishor Tiwari, Rahul s/o. Suresh Neware, Sachin s/o. Narayan Waghmare

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal by challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for allegedly causing the death of Ramraj Kulmethe by assault.

Previous Decisions

The Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur convicted the appellants in Sessions Trial 200 of 2006 on 2.11.2006.

Issues

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the deceased. Whether the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is made out.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants' counsel argued that prosecution failed to prove assault and that at most offence under Section 323 IPC could be made out. Respondent's counsel supported the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

Medical evidence ruled out death due to assault and suggested natural death; ocular evidence was inconsistent and unreliable; FIR did not name accused as assailants; hence prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

PW 4 Dr. Gawande who conducted the autopsy has ruled out death due to assault. The First Information Report (Exh 23) which is lodged with promptitude does not name accused 2 Rahul and accused 3 Sachin as the assailants.

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur on 2.11.2006 in Sessions Trial 200 of 2006 for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. They appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 304 Part II, 323
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Culpable Homicide Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Assault and Natural Death Possibility. Medical evidence ruled out assault and suggested natural death, and FIR did not name accused as assailants, leading to ac...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Essential Commodities Act Case: Transport of Paddy Within Punjab Not an Attempt to Export. Mere Preparation, Not Attempt, Established as Lorry Intercepted Inside State Before Reaching Border; No Offence Under Section ...