Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Pachu Jaidev Bishwas - Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2004
Decided on : 03-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. (Shri) Anjan De
For the Respondent: Mrs.H.N.Prabhu

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Conviction of accused under Section 307 was challenged on grounds of inconsistent evidence and lack of corroboration - The trial court convicted the accused based on testimonies of injured and eyewitnesses, but inconsistencies in their accounts raised doubts about the prosecution's case - The evidence did not establish that injuries were sufficient to cause death - The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted. (Paras 2, 10, 58)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - The accused's statement was recorded under Section 313, denying the charges and claiming false implication - The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence in criminal cases. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for assaulting Shakti Mandal with a knife during a quarrel, resulting in grievous injuries. The informant, Gautam Gaurang Baid, intervened and was also injured. The prosecution relied on testimonies of multiple witnesses, but inconsistencies in their accounts were highlighted. (Paras 3, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. The injuries were not sufficient to establish an attempt to murder. (Paras 56, 58)

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the credibility of witness testimonies. (Paras 17, 58)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness accounts and lack of corroboration warranted acquittal. (Paras 56, 58)

Result: The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, the appellant (the accused) has challenged judgment and order dated 23.7.2004 passed by learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur (learned Judge of the trial court), in Sessions Case No.32/2000.

2. By the said judgment impugned, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

Gautam Gaurang Baid (the informant) has lodged report at Ramnagar Police Station, Chandrapur that he along with his parents is residing at Bangali Camp Nehru Nagar Chowk, Chandrapur. On 2.4.1999, between 8:00 pm to 8:15 pm, he along with his friends was proceeding towards the house of his sister Shilabai at Shamnagar. He noticed a quarrel near “Durga Temple” and, therefore, he approached the said persons and saw that the accused was assaulting Shakti Mandal by means of knife and the other accused Pankaj Bishwas and Ribhang were also assaulting Shakti Mandal. Due to the assault, Shakti Mandal sustained injuries on his abdomen and left armpit. When he went to intervene the quarrel, the accused also assaulted him on his back by means of knife and, thereafter, he approached the police station and lodged the report. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the crime vide Crime No.167/1999 under Sections 307, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After registration of the crime, wheels of investigation started rotating. During investigation, the investigating Officer visited the alleged spot of the incident and drawn spot panchanama. During the investigation, accused persons were arrested at the instance of the accused and the weapon of the offence was recovered and seized. During spot panchanama, the investigating Officer collected blood stained soil and simple soil from the spot, statements of the injured and other eyewitnesses were also recorded. After collecting medical certificate, opinion of the Medical Officer, and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed.

5. As the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charge was framed vide Exhibit-18. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses as follows:

2. Champabai Vishwas vide Exhibit-30 (PW2);

3. Gautam Baid vide Exhibit-31 (PW3);

4. Sau.Pornima Das Exhibit-34 (PW4);

5. Bhaskar Sahare Exhibit-36 (PW5); the pancha

6. Gopal Mandal Exhibit-42 (PW6); 7. Manik Kumre Exhibit-51 (PW7);

8. Kusum Shete Exhibit-53 (PW8), the Medical Officer;

9. Dadarao Jadhav Exhibit-63 (PW9), the Investigating Officer;

10. Dr.Raju Shende Exhibit-72 (PW10), the Medical Officer, and

11. Shiodas Munjewar Exhibit-78 (PW11), Assistant Police Inspector.

7. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed reliance on Chemical Analyzer’s Reports Exhibits-24 and 25, Report Exhibit-32, First Information Report Exhibit-33, seizure panchanama of clothes of injured Exhibit-37, seizure of clothes of the accused Exhibit-38, memorandum statement of the accused Exhibit-39, discovery panchanama Exhibit-40, spot panchanama Exhibit-43, seizure memos Exhibits-44 and 52, requisition to the Medical Officer Exhibit-53, medical certificates Exhibits-55, certificate issued by the General Hospital Chandrapur Exhibit-56, medical certificate Exhibit-57, diagram of weapon Exhibit-58, requisition to the Medical Officer Exhibit-73, and OPD Card of injured Gautam Exhibit-74.

8. After recording the evidence, incriminating articles were put to the accused for seeking his explanation. The defence of the accused is of total denial and was of false implication. Accordingly, his statement was recorded unde