2020 NearLaw (BombayHC Nagpur) Online 246
Bombay High Court

JUSTICE N. B. SURYAWANSHI JUSTICE N. W. SAMBRE

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajkumar S/o Mahadeo Walke

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 269/2006

26th February 2020

Petitioner Counsel: Shri A.M. Kadukar
Respondent Counsel:
Act Name: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian Penal Code, 1860

HeadNote : Penal Code (1860), S. 307 – Attempt to murder – Acquittal for – Validity – Victim initially supported prosecution case in examination-in-chief, however in cross examination she has claimed that there ensued a scuffle between herself and accused and as consequences, she fell on almirah and thereafter on platform of kitchen – As a consequences she claimed to have suffered injuries – She also claimed that incised wound was caused because of her fall on traditional lamp – She further stated that another prosecution witness who is her minor son supported prosecution case as was directed and tutored by her – In such weak piece of evidence, acquittal proper. (Paras 5, 6, 7)

Section :
Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

N. W. Sambre, J.

1. This is a state appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the acquittal of the respondent - accused in Sessions Case No.38/2005 decided on 16th February, 2006.

2. The respondent - accused was charged with an offence punishable under Section 307 for attempting to commit murder of his wife.

3. The case of the prosecution is: Vishakha, wife of the accused, was strapped by a dagger repeatedly.

4. The prosecution case rests on the statement of victim Vishakha, minor son Robin i.e. eye witnesses and other corroborating material viz. the discovery of weapon, the blood stained clothes etc.

5. P.W.6 Vishakha initially supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief, however, in her cross-examination, she has claimed that there ensued a scuffle between herself and the respondent and as a consequences, she fell on an almirah and thereafter on the platform of kitchen. As a consequences, she claimed to have suffered injuries. She also claimed that the incised wound was caused because of her fall on the traditional lamp.

6. As such, from her evidence it can’t be inferred that she has supported the prosecution case.

7. The other eye witness to the incident namely Robin, who is examined as P.W.7, has supported the case of the prosecution. The said witness, at the relevant time, was minor. P.W.6 victim Vishakha, who is examined at Exh.37, has stated that minor son Robin has deposed in support of prosecution case as was directed and tutored by her.

8. In the wake of aforesaid weak piece of evidence, the order of acquittal ordered by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.38/2005 is very much justified, the appeal lacks merit, stands dismissed.