CHANDRABHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants stood trial before the Court of Session for offence punishable under Section 307/34, I. P. C. on the allegation that on the night intervening 12th and 13th April, 1986, they made a murderous assault on Deoman. PW-3, while lying asleep in his house. Since the sole injury, later attributed to Mahadeo appellant, was caused on the neck by means of a dagger and his thyroid cartilage was cut leaving the vocal cords wide open, the victim was unable to speak and give out the names of the assailants. Even later, the names of the assailants were not given by the victim himself, but the prosecution case is that they had been gathered from him by the investigation. The trial Court took the view that the assailants could not be proved to have committed the crime and therefore ordered their acquittal. The High Court reversed that view and recorded conviction sentencing the appellants to three years R. I.

(2.) As is evident, the role assigned to the respective appellants was that the appellants other than Mahadeo caught hold of the victim to immobilize him and Mahadeo caused the sole injury. A according to PW-3, the four assailants got close to him while he was asleep and before inflicting the injury had tightly closed his mouth whereafter he was lifted up from his cot and then assaulted. The other inmates of the house, though becoming awake because of the commotion, could not identify the assailants. It is for that reason that the son of the victim, when reporting the matter to the Police, could not say as to who the assailants were. The victim after assault was taken to the hospital on 13-2-1986 and an operation was performed upon him the very same day. He remained in the hospital for about a month. When released on 12-5-1986, he was contacted the following day by the Police to give them the names of the assailants. It is the categoric stand of the victim that he did not divulge the names of the assailants to the Police. All the same, the Police, as said before, claimed to have received the names from him. It is in this state of evidence that the appellants were charged of the offence.

(3.) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether in this state of evidence, it would be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants. It is to be noticed that the motive for the crime was of some degree but not of a high magnitude. A couple of days prior to the occurrence, some of the accused party had made their cart pass through the fields of the victim, thereby causing extensive damage to the wheat and mustard crops. The victim had reported the matter to the Police two days prior to the occurrence. It is suggested that it is for that reason that the appellants thought of taking revenge, on account of the matter being reported to the Police. It is not clear from the record as to what did the Police do on receipt of that complaint. The appellants on the basis of the said motive could hardly be so aggrieved so as to cause a grievous assault on the victim and that too by attempting to murder him but cutting off his neck. From the totality of circumstances, it appears to us that had the victim been aware that he had been surrounded by the assailants, he would have instantaneously and impulsively, then and there raised his voice but as, according to him, he was frightened and his mouth was tightened, no voice could be raised by him. After the infliction of the injury, he was unable to raise his voice. In these circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate as to how others were attracted to the scene, and had they been so attracted, they could have at least, given the number of assailants and, if possible, their names too, for they were no strangers but co-villagers of theirs. The identity of the assailants, thus, remained in doldrums for nearly a month. During the latter half of the month the victim was definitely in a position to go about and he could have made signs and gestures, if not in writing to convey as to who was his actual assailant. Thus, in these circumstances, when there was delay and hesitation in conveying to the Investigation the names of the appellants, and the Investigation took on its own to identify appellants, it becomes difficult to maintain their conviction. Even otherwise when two views were possible, the High Court should have been slow in upsetting the order of acquittal, all the more, when the trial Court laid particular emphasis on the victim not naming the assailants even before the Investigation as the culprits. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail-bonds.