Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Vikas, who was allegedly killed by the appellants, Hanmant (accused no.1) and Ramakant (accused no.2), on the intervening night of 6th and 7th July 2014. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of accused no.2, which led to the assault with an axe. The brother of the deceased, Govind (PW2), lodged an FIR. After investigation, the appellants were chargesheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court convicted them and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants appealed before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence, including the testimony of PW2, PW3, and PW4, who claimed to have last seen the deceased with the appellants. However, the court found that the last seen theory was not reliable because the time of death was not established and the witnesses gave contradictory statements. The recovery of the axe was also doubted as it was not sealed properly and no independent witnesses were present. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Section 302 r/w 34 IPC - Appellants were convicted for murder based on last seen evidence and recovery of axe - Court held that the last seen theory was not reliable as the time gap was not proximate and the recovery of axe was not credible due to lack of independent witnesses and tampering possibility - Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-10).
B) Evidence Law - Identification of Accused - Credibility of Witnesses - Appellants were identified by witnesses but the court found the identification doubtful due to contradictions and improvements in testimony - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 4-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 108 of 2014 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Identification of accused
- Credibility of witnesses
- Benefit of doubt
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 24
Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2016
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
Mr. Joydeep Chaterji, Mr. Anand V. Patil (Indrale), Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, Mr. B. R. Kedar
Ramakant Murhari Aalat and Hanmant @ Billa Vishwanath Aalat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for murder of Vikas based on alleged last seen evidence and recovery of axe.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Issues
Whether the last seen theory is reliable to establish the guilt of the appellants?
Whether the recovery of the axe and identification of the appellants are credible?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the last seen theory is not reliable, and the recovery of the axe is doubtful.
Respondent argued that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and the conviction is justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the last seen theory cannot be the sole basis for conviction when the time gap is not proximate and the evidence of witnesses is contradictory. The recovery of the weapon was also not credible. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Both the appeals are arising out of judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 108 of 2014 and are therefore taken up and decided by way of this common judgment.
Appellants, i.e. accused no.1-Hanmant and accused no.2-Ramakant were chargesheeted by Chakur Police Station, Latur for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] on the premise that, they intentionally and knowingly committed murder of Vikas by assaulting him with axe for maintaining illicit relations with wife of accused no.2-Ramakant.
Procedural History
The appellants were chargesheeted and tried in Sessions Case No. 108 of 2014 before the Sessions Judge, Latur, who convicted them. They appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 374
