Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned District Judge – 7 & Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik dated 08.06.2015 in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2013. The appellants, Murlidhar Waman Bombale, Waman Tulshiram Bombale, and Vishnu Waman Bombale, were original accused Nos. 1 to 3. They were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 323 r/w 34, and 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment, 3 years, and 1 year respectively. The prosecution case was that on 06.12.2012, due to a water dispute, the accused persons assaulted the complainant's son Dattu with a sickle, and also assaulted the complainant and his other son Raghunath with sticks and sickles. Dattu succumbed to his injuries. The trial court, after trial, convicted the appellants and acquitted accused No. 4 Rani. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and that the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses (PW.3, PW.4, and PW.5) were inconsistent and contradictory. The High Court heard extensive arguments from both sides. The court noted that the testimonies of these witnesses were not consistent regarding the manner of assault and the weapons used. The court found that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The court directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimonies - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 323, 324 r/w 34 - The appellants were convicted for murder and causing hurt. The High Court found that the testimonies of PW.3, PW.4, and PW.5 were inconsistent and contradictory regarding the manner of assault and weapons used. The court held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt, and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellants challenged the trial court's judgment. The High Court, after re-appreciating evidence, found that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate the inconsistencies, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable in light of inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Inconsistencies in testimonies
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 374 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
