Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Prashant Barge on 3rd May 2012. The prosecution alleged that the three accused, Eknath Shinde, Bhaishya Pardeshi, and Abhijeet Sangare, in furtherance of common intention, assaulted the deceased with knives and sticks, causing his death. The motive was an earlier incident of teasing of Manisha Shingade (PW5) by accused no.3, which led to a quarrel. The trial court convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of eyewitnesses Mangal Shingade (PW2) and Balkrishna Shingade (PW6), who claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased. However, their descriptions of the assailants were inconsistent and the identification parade was not reliable. The court also noted that the recovery of weapons was not credible as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Benefit of Doubt - The appellants were convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and recovery of weapons. The High Court found the evidence of last seen weak and the identification of accused doubtful due to inconsistencies in witness testimony. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-27) B) Evidence Law - Identification of Accused - Doubtful Identification - The witnesses claimed to have seen the accused at the scene but their descriptions were inconsistent and the identification parade was not properly conducted. The court held that such identification cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 15-20) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Appellate Court's Power - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or based on no evidence. Held that the trial court's judgment was based on conjectures and hence liable to be set aside. (Paras 25-27)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Doubtful identification
- Common intention
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Motive
- Recovery of weapon
