Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of V.G. Patil, a college lecturer and political activist, on 21 September 2005. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was intercepted by two motorcycle-borne assailants, pulled out of his car, and stabbed to death. The informant, PW-1 Mahendra Mahajan, witnessed the incident and lodged the FIR. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the Local Crime Branch and CID, and later transferred to the CBI. Charge sheets were filed against four accused: Raju Pundlik Mali (A1), Raju Chintaman Sonawane (A2, the appellant), Liladhar Narkhede (A3), and Damodhar Lokhande (A4). The trial court convicted A1 and A2 under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, while A3 and A4 were acquitted. The appellant, A2, appealed against his conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the informant (PW-1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Other eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) also turned hostile. The court found that the identification of the appellant was doubtful as the assailants wore helmets. The recovery of a knife at the instance of the appellant was not supported by independent witnesses and the knife was not sent for forensic examination. The motive alleged against the appellant was weak, and the conspiracy between the appellant and the other accused was not proved. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC - Acquittal - Prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and identity of assailants - Witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements - Recovery of weapon not linked to appellant - Circumstantial evidence insufficient - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-22). B) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Section 120-B IPC - Proof of conspiracy - No direct evidence of meeting of minds - Only suspicion and conjecture - Held that conspiracy must be proved by evidence, not inference (Paras 10-15). C) Criminal Law - Arms Act - Section 3/25 - Recovery of knife - No independent witness to recovery - Knife not sent for forensic examination - Held that recovery is not reliable (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2006 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- acquittal
- lack of evidence
- unreliable witnesses
- conspiracy not proved
- identification of accused
- circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- recovery of weapon
- motive
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 120-B IPC
- Section 3/25 Arms Act
