Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original accused Nos. 1 to 4, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, for the murder of Santu Jayram Ranmale and other offences. The prosecution case was that on 8 October 2003, accused No.1 Anil Yelmame attacked Santu with a sword, causing fatal injuries, while the other accused were present and shared common intention. The sole eyewitness was PW-2 Dattu, son of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the incident. However, his testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. Other witnesses, including PW-1 (wife of deceased) and PW-3 (another son), did not support the prosecution version. The medical evidence did not corroborate the eyewitness account. The High Court held that the conviction based on such weak evidence was unsustainable and acquitted all accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Sole Eyewitness - Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony requires the witness to be wholly reliable and the evidence to be corroborated by other circumstances - In the present case, the sole eyewitness (PW-2) gave inconsistent versions, and his testimony was not corroborated by other witnesses or medical evidence - Held that the conviction is unsustainable (Paras 10-20). B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - For conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of a pre-arranged plan or common intention shared by all accused - The prosecution failed to prove that the other accused shared the common intention to commit murder - Held that the conviction under Section 34 IPC is not justified (Paras 15-18). C) Criminal Law - Motive - Weakness of Motive - While motive is not essential for conviction, its absence or weakness can be considered when the direct evidence is doubtful - The alleged civil dispute over hotel premises was insufficient to establish a strong motive for murder - Held that the prosecution failed to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of the sole eyewitness and other circumstances.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction of all appellants under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Credibility of sole eyewitness
- Corroboration of testimony
- Circumstantial evidence
- Motive
- Common intention
