Can the mere fact that a person has threatened to take strict action against another person be used as a ground for convicting a person for attempt to murder?

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 25th February 2020

The State of Maharashtra vs Ajit Sing Sitaram Desai, Criminal Appeal NO.544 OF 2000

Matter

Dr Shetti (Victim/Informant) was the Dean of D.Y.Patil Medical College, Kolhapur. The workers’ Union had been on strike before his joining the said college. Shri Desai (Accused), President of Workers’ Union and his 10-15 supporters had been to the informant to discuss their various demands to which the informant   had advised them to go before the Management Committee. Dr.Krishnaji Yadav, Administrative Officer of the said college had complained to Dr Shetti of the misbeviour meted out by the accused to him. The accused again visited the Informant and asked the fate of their demands. He also threatened the informant of strict action against him. The informant gave him (accused) a memo of his behaviour. On 5th June, 1998 at about 2.30 pm the informant visited library and thereafter visited Room No.102 on the first floor and found it open.  In order to find out whether electrical work had been carried out in the said room or not, he went there. According to him there were two male students and one female student. Meanwhile, someone gave blow of sharp weapon on the neck of the informant from behind and that caused bleeding.  The informant immediately put his hand on the neck, turned back and saw accused running from there.  The informant raised commotion when Kiran Mane, Clerk and Dr.Yadav  came and then the informant told about assault  at the hands of accused.   The informant also told them about the presence of said two boys and one girl having witnessed the incident. The informant was then rushed to the C.P.R. Hospital and admitted there.

Appellant’s Contention (State of Maharashtra)

• It submitted that that the evidence of eye witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 was not appreciated in proper perspective by the learned trial Court.
• It submitted that the medical evidence was also overlooked.
• The learned trial Court ought to have relied upon evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who were very much present   at the time of incident. Since there is erroneous finding of acquittal, the same is liable to be set aside.

Respondent’s Contention (Ajit Sing Sitaram Desai)

• It stated that the victim did not inform of the kind of weapon used by the accused. Whereas, PW-5 and PW-6, were in a position to see that the accused was armed with sickle while running away from the place of occurrence.
• The medical evidence put forth by the appellant is not satisfactory. It does not suggest even remotely that alleged injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
• It criticized the evidence of alleged recovery of weapon by contending that the same was allegedly recovered from open place which was accessible to one and all.
• The Chemical Analyzer’s report is also not sufficient to prove the appellants case. Thus, the the findings recorded by learned trial Court being reasonable and probable, the same should not be interfered with in the present appeal.

Held

• We hold that the prosecution could not cogently and convincingly establish the guilt of the accused.  Therefore, the finding of acquittal as recorded by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity.  We see no ground to overturn the findings of acquittal of the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.