The appellate court modified the conviction from attempted murder to lesser charges due to insufficient evidence of intent, thus reflecting on the critical importance of establishing motive and eyewitness reliability in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

G.BASAVARAJA, J.

1. The appellant Shabeebi D/o Mohammed Safir who is accused, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2010 challenging the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31^st May, 2010 passed in S.C.No.233 of 2009 by the District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short “the trial Court), whereby the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

2. Victim-PW1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1209 of 2010 seeking enhancement of sentence passed by the trial Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per status and rank before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts, leading to both these appeals are that, Doddaballapura Town Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under sections 120B and 307 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused was a maid servant in the house of PW1-Smt. Askari Begum and she was working as such in the house of PW1 for the past seven years; she has borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- and the said amount was not repaid. It is the case of the complaint that the complainant and her children have conspired to kill PW1 and to rob the valuable jewels and money from house of PW1. Further, it is alleged that, in furtherance of the said conspiracy and common intention, on 16^th April, 2009 at about 10:45 am, the appellant and her daughter entered the house of PW1 and appellant alleged to have gagged-up the mouth of PW1 and the daughter the appellant has caught hold the hand of PW1, and the of son of appellant alleged to have assaulted on the mouth of PW1 and other parts of her face. When PW1 started to scream, the son of the accused took the mantle of his sister and tied it to the neck of PW1 and pulled her down and thereafter, he poured kerosene on the body of PW1 and tried to light fire. Thus, the accused committed offence under Sections 120B and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5. Sri K.B.K. Swamy, learned Advocate was appointed as standing Counsel to the accused at the request of the accused and after hearing the arguments, the trial Court has framed charges for commission of offence under sections 120B and 307 of IPC and the same was explained to the accused in the language to her. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, fifteen witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 15, fourteen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P14 and seven material objects were marked as MOs1 to7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against her and during the course of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, Exhibits D1 to D3 were marked.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under section 120B of Indian Penal Code and convicted the accused for the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The trial Court has also set off the period of detention undergone by the accused for a period of seven months four days. Being aggrieved