Gujarat HC Upholds Two Men’s Acquittal In Alleged Axe-Blow Case, Finding Attempt To Murder Unproved

The prosecution alleged that on 2 October 1998, respondent No. 1 struck Babu Samat on the head with an axe, while respondent No. 2 instigated him.

The State charged the respondents under Sections 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

The Sessions Court acquitted them, and the State appealed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

On appeal, the High Court noted that the injured’s assailant was not named in the initial medical history, the doctors who issued later medical certificates were not examined, and no specific role was attributed to respondent No. 2.

Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers an appellate court to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, the accused retain the presumption of innocence, strengthened by acquittal; where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal

Section 307 IPC requires the relevant intention or knowledge and circumstances for an act to constitute attempted murder; Section 324 IPC concerns voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon or means

The charges in this appeal also invoked Section 114 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act

The High Court found that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that respondent No. 1 acted with premeditation or an intention to kill; the medical evidence did not resolve the uncertainty, particularly because the doctors who issued the later certificates were not examined and the initial medical history did not identify the alleged assailant.

The witnesses attributed no specific role to respondent No. 2, and the Court found no credible evidence sufficient to connect the respondents to the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court concluded that the trial Court’s assessment was not perverse or otherwise legally infirm.

It dismissed the State’s appeal, confirmed the acquittal, cancelled the respondents’ bail bonds and directed that the record and proceedings be returned to the trial Court.