Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rakesh @ Bhaiya Shambhuprasad Gupta, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.206 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- for the murder of Raju Singh, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for causing hurt. The co-accused, Imran alias Balya Aslam Khan, was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC but convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 28 June 2012, at a marriage function, the appellant and co-accused, who were working as waiters, consumed liquor and caused a nuisance. The deceased, Raju Singh, asked them to leave, and later they called him outside. The appellant allegedly stabbed Raju Singh with a knife, causing his death. The first informant, Bhavar Singh (PW1), claimed to have witnessed the incident and sustained a cut injury. The appellant was arrested at the scene. The trial court relied on the testimony of PW1 and other witnesses to convict the appellant. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The testimony of PW1 was contradictory regarding the sequence of events and the role of the appellant. The recovery of the knife was not credible as the panch witness turned hostile. The medical evidence did not conclusively link the knife to the injuries. The court also noted that the co-accused was acquitted of murder, which cast doubt on the common intention. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was convicted for murder of Raju Singh. The High Court found material inconsistencies in the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW1) and other witnesses, and the recovery of the weapon was doubtful. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-21). B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal of co-accused for murder - The co-accused was acquitted of murder but convicted for simple hurt. The court noted that the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 was inconsistent with the acquittal of the co-accused for murder, as there was no evidence of common intention to cause death (Paras 2, 21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.206 of 2012, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. He is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony create doubt
- Identification of accused must be reliable
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires prior meeting of minds
