Date of Order:
19th July 2023
Bench:
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Justice Aravind Kumar
Parties:
BOINI MAHIPAL AND ANR
[APPELLANTS]
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA
[RESPONDENT(S)]
SUBJECT
- The questions presented include whether or not the conviction judgement against petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 should be affirmed.
- A-1 and A-6 were charged with assaulting Smt. Anjamma, who died at their house. They were convicted for Section 323 and acquitted for Section 302 and Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 1,000, and two months of simple imprisonment.
- Witnesses claimed accused No.1 kicked the deceased, but no overt acts were mentioned. Prosecution failed to prove guilt, and insufficient evidence prevented their conviction under Section 323 and 34 of IPC.
- The appeal was allowed and the accused were acquitted along with the discharge of their bail bonds.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 323 IPC
OVERVIEW
- A complaint was filed against A-1 and A-6 for assaulting Smt. Anjamma, who died at their house. Initial treatment at Government Hospital Zaheerabad and Osmania Hospital Hyderabad was unsuccessful, and she succumbed to her injuries on 12.04.2012 at 09:00 p.m.
- A complaint was registered in 2012 for offences under Section 302, 303, 504 of IPC. Chargesheets were laid against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A-1, A-4, and A-6 for Section 323 and acquitted them for Section 302 and Section 34 IPC.
- They were sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 1,000, and two months of simple imprisonment.
- The appellants filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1168 of 2012, but the High Court dismissed the appeals, leading to the appellants’ appeal.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the judgement and order of conviction against petitioners No. 3 and 4 should stand or be overturned.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellants argue that courts failed to recognize PW-5’s role as a distant relative of the deceased. He admitted that no overt act could be attributed to the appellants, and that the presence of family members at the crime scene did not establish common intention or participation for vicarious liability under Section 34 of IPC.
- They contend that the Sessions Judge did not record any finding on satisfying Section 34 of IPC, and the prosecution did not produce any injury certificates for the deceased’s relatives.
- They also argue that the post-mortem report did not incriminate them and that the conviction is reliable to be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Counsel for respondent supports court orders and prays for appeal dismissal.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The prosecution lacks evidence to prove that appellants A-3 and A-4 assaulted the deceased. They attempt to project that relatives of the deceased were beaten or assaulted by the appellants, but no evidence is available. Without this evidence, the appellants’ conviction cannot be sustained.
- Witnesses (PW-2 to PW-5) consistently claim accused No.1 kicked the deceased on her stomach, but no overt acts were mentioned. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as courts found evidence did not clearly establish the appellants’ assault on the deceased and the alleged injuries sustained.
- Insufficient evidence against appellants-accused in incident prevents conviction under Section 323 and 34 of IPC.
- The appeal is allowed, setting aside the previous court’s judgment and sentence, and acquitting the appellants.
- They are ordered to be released and their bail bonds discharged.
