Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Arindam Lodh, J. partly allowed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under the provision of IPC and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The appellant was neighbor of the complainant – father of the victim. It was alleged that the appellant had taken the victim girl, aged six and half years, from her house by saying that she was being called by his mother. It was alleged that on their way, the appellant took the victim in a jungle and did ill act against her. She was found crying in the jungle and she narrated the incident to her parents after which the complaint was filed. The appellant was tried and convicted by the trial court under Section 376 (2) (i) and 511 IPC along with Section 10 POCSO Act. Aggrieved thereby, the instant appeal was filed.

The High Court perused the record and note that statements made by the victim that the appellant touched her private part were not substantiated by any scrape of evidence, rather in her cross she categorically denied the story which she narrated in her examination-in-chief. The doctor also found no injury on any part of her body. It was observed as a settled principle that to substantiate the allegation of rape, there has to be penetration even in the slightest form to the vagina of the female which was absent in the present case. The doctor in his evidence never stated that there was any penetration to the vagina of the victim. Further, to substantiate the charge under Section 511 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act, the attempt of rape as well as the story of aggravated sexual assault is necessary to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was the view of the Court that the witnesses had tried to improvise the story which was not stated before the Magistrate. This raised serious doubts about the genuinity of the prosecution case in respect of rape or sexual assault. Thus, the accused was entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In the circumstances of the case, according to the Court, the appellant at best could be convicted under Section 354 of IPC. On consideration of the facts that the appellant was 21 years of age and was first time offender at the time of commission of the offence, the sentence of the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appeal was disposed of in the terms of above. [Dipankar Sarkar v. State of Tripura,2018 SCC OnLine Tri 233, decided on 11-10-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Navin Sinha, J. delivered the judgment for the Full Court comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, JJ. and himself, wherein the appeal filed by a murder convict against his conviction was partly allowed.

The appellant was convicted for murdering his neighbor. The facts were that the appellant had an altercation with the deceased due to loud playing of tape recorder. The appellant was irked by the loud noise. A verbal argument ensued. The appellant rushed across to his house, came back with a sword and delivered a single blow to the deceased in the rib cage area and then ran away threatening to see him later. The deceased succumbed to the injury the same day. The trial court acquitted the appellant but he was convicted by the Uttaranchal High Court for the offence punishable under Section 302. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

The Supreme Court considered the factual matrix of the case and held that in the entirety of the evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 was liable to be modified. The Court reached a conclusion that the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment. It was noted that genesis of the occurrence was a single assault. Moreover, duration of the entire episode was less than 2 minutes, which lends credence to the view that the assault was made without pre-meditation at the spur of time. Thus, it was not safe to convict the appellant for murder. However, he had knowledge that such assault was likely to cause death. In such circumstances, the Court was of the view that the conviction of the appellant was liable to be modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II. The appeal was, thus, partly allowed. [Deepak v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine SC 770, decided on 01-08-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of P.N. Deshmukh and M.G. Giratkar, J., partly allowed a criminal appeal which was filed against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC passed by the trial court.

The convict was accused of throwing chilli powder at the deceased and other persons and strangulating the deceased to death. The case was that the accused ran a liquor store, which was objected to by the deceased and other members of a certain samiti. According to the appellant, the deceased was leading a mob of 50 people, trying to enter her house. Apprehending threat and danger, the appellant got frightened and threw chilli powder at the mob. She caught hold of the deceased by her hair and scuffled with her only so that it would act as a deterrent for other persons from entering the house. However, during the said scuffle, the deceased died accidentally. The appellant was tried and convicted under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved thus, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

The High Court perused the record very carefully. In light of the post-mortem report along with evidence of witnesses, it was proved that death of the deceased was homicidal. However, the Court was of the view that since the defendant did not have any intention to kill the deceased, the conviction of the appellant was liable to modified from that under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II. The order was made accordingly. [Sumitra v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1550, dated 19-07-2018]