Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Narayan Ghate, was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly attempting to murder Raju Bokde (PW3) by stabbing him in the abdomen with a knife on 13 March 1998. The incident arose from a previous altercation on Holi when PW3 applied colour to the appellant's son. The trial court sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence, noting that the FIR was initially registered under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon) and later converted to Section 307 IPC. The court found material contradictions among the prosecution witnesses: PW3 claimed that eyewitnesses PW2, PW4, and PW5 were present at the scene, but PW2 stated he arrived later, PW4 said he was not present, and PW5 gave inconsistent statements. The medical evidence showed a single incised wound on the abdomen, but the doctors (PW8 and PW11) testified that the injury was not on a vital organ and the victim was discharged after treatment. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death, which is essential for Section 307 IPC. The single blow, the nature of the injury, and the lack of vital organ involvement indicated that the act did not constitute an attempt to murder. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Intention to Cause Death - The court examined whether a single blow on the abdomen with a knife constitutes an attempt to murder. Held that the nature of injury, the weapon used, and the circumstances must indicate an intention to cause death. In this case, the injury was not on a vital organ and the victim survived, indicating lack of intent to kill. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Witness Credibility - Contradictions in Testimony - The court noted material contradictions between the testimonies of PW3 (injured victim) and PW2, PW4, PW5 (eyewitnesses) regarding the presence of witnesses and the sequence of events. Held that such contradictions create doubt and the benefit must go to the accused. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Conviction - Benefit of Doubt - The court held that when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in evidence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable when the injury was a single blow on the abdomen and the prosecution witnesses had material contradictions.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death
- mere injury not sufficient
- single blow on non-vital part may not constitute attempt to murder
- benefit of doubt to accused in case of contradictions
