IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sarang V.Kotwal, J.
Rohit Vijay Borade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2020
Decided On : 04-01-2023
IPC - Assault - 307, 34 - The judgment discusses the applicability of sec. 34 of the IPC to the present Appellant, the contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses, and the evidence regarding the assault on the victim. The court concludes that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had shared common intention with the accused No.1 in causing the serious injuries to the victim. The Appellant is acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a quarrel at a marriage ceremony leading to an assault on the victim with a Koyta, resulting in serious injuries. The trial court convicted the accused, including the Appellant, for the offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had shared common intention with the accused No.1 in causing the serious injuries to the victim. The Appellant was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of sec. 34 of the IPC to the present Appellant and the reliability of the eyewitnesses' statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the Appellant's shared common intention with the accused No.1 in causing the serious injuries to the victim, based on contradictions in the eyewitnesses' statements and the evidence regarding the assault.
Final Decision: The Appeal was allowed, and the Appellant was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dtd. 26/02/2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.363 of 2017. The Appellant was the original accused No.2. There were two more accused namely accused No.1 Pravin @ Pavan Sunil Donde and accused No.3 Vishal Raju Donde. At the conclusion of the trial, all the accused including the Appellant were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 of the IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. They were acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable u/s 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. They were granted set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard Mr. Pratik R. Kalantri, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.
3. The prosecution case is that in one marriage ceremony there was quarrel between the accused Pravin @ Pavan Donde and the injured in this case Prakash Donde. On 15/07/2017, at about 10.15 p.m., outside the Gaming zone in Pathardi this incident took place. There was quarrel between the injured Prakash and the accused with reference to previous quarrel during marriage ceremony. It is alleged that the Appellant tried to assault the injured Prakash with a Koyta but Prakash removed that Koyta and threw it away. It is further alleged that accused No.3 Vishal Donde held the injured Prakash from behind and accused No.1 Pravin @ Pavan gave blows with the Koyta on the centre of his head causing grievous injuries. Prakash was taken to a hospital. The police were informed. They recorded his statement and registered C.R.No.189/2017 at Indira Nagar police station on 16/07/2017 at about 03.20 a.m. The accused including the Appellant were arrested on 18/07/2017. Their clothes were seized. In the meantime Spot Panchanama was conducted and Koyta found on the spot was seized. Weapons and clothes were sent for chemical analysis. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The statement of eyewitnesses were also recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. At the instance of accused No.1 one Koyta was recovered. After conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The defence of the accused was of total denial. After considering the evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant and other accused as mentioned earlier.
4. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses including the victim Prakash Donde, two eyewitnesses, the Panchas for various Panchanamas, Medical Officers who had treated the victim and finally the Investigating Officer.
5. P.W.1 Prakash Donde is the main witness. He had suffered injuries. He has deposed as follows: He was a resident of Pathardi. He knew the accused before the Court as they were residents of his village. The incident had taken place on 15/07/2017 at about 10.15 p.m. near a temple in village Pathardi. At that time he was walking with his friend Rohit Soundarya (P.W.2), Pritam Shardul (P.W.3) and Dilip Pradhan. The Appellant and accused No.1 Pravin @ Pavan came there. On account of their dispute in the Haldi programme, the Appellant took out a Koyta. P.W.1 snatched it and threw it away. Accused No.3 Vishal Donde was already present near the gaming zone. The other accused came subsequently. After that accused No.3 Vishal caught P.W.1 and accused No.1 Pravin @ Pavan assaulted him with Koyta on his head. He also assaulted P.W.1 on right side of the chin, left side of the head and on his chest. After that P.W.1 became unconscious. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Nashik. His statement was recorded by police in the hospital. It was treated as FIR. It is produced on record at Ex.46. On 16/07/2017, he was shifted to Life Care Hospital and then to Sopan Hospital. The police again recorded his statement at Sopan hospital. He ide
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused's shared common intention in a criminal act, as per sec. 34 of the IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of common intention under the Indian Penal Code and the individual culpability of the accused based on their actions and intentions....
The reliability and credibility of eyewitness testimony, the significance of absconding as incriminating evidence, and the application of legal provisions under Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants had a common intention to murder the victim, and their actions did not fall within the exception for culpable homicide not amou....
The appellants were convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the assault occurred without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, with shared common intention.
The court modified the conviction of the accused from attempted murder to causing grievous hurt, emphasizing the need for direct evidence in serious charges.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of direct evidence and medical reports in proving a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.