Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rahul Babanrao Bhad, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Pratiksha, with whom he had a love affair and allegedly married. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of P.W.5 Shewta, who claimed to be an eye witness. The High Court found her testimony unreliable due to contradictions and improvements. The court noted that the earliest information about the incident was received at the police station at 1:36 p.m., but the FIR was lodged only at 7:13 p.m., and the investigating officer had proceeded to the spot before registration of the FIR, indicating suppression of the earliest information. The delay in lodging the FIR was not explained. The forensic evidence was inconclusive as the blood group could not be determined. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on eye witness testimony - Eye witness P.W.5's testimony found unreliable due to contradictions and improvements - Prosecution suppressed the earliest information received at police station - Delay in lodging FIR not explained - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 13-18). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Suppression of First Information - Information received at police station at 1:36 p.m. but FIR lodged at 7:13 p.m. - Investigating officer proceeded to spot before registration of FIR - Held that suppression of earliest information creates doubt about prosecution case (Paras 11-12). C) Criminal Law - Forensic Evidence - Inconclusive Blood Group - Chemical analysis report showed human blood on clothes and weapon but blood group inconclusive - Held that mere presence of human blood without linking to deceased or accused does not prove guilt (Para 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Eye witness testimony
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Suppression of earliest information
- Inconclusive blood group report
- Benefit of doubt
