Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by original accused Nos.1 and 2, Manohar and Uttam Sadavarte, challenging their conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad on 26th November 2015 in Sessions Case No.380 of 2012. They were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story, in short, is that the informant Subhash is a resident of Warudi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad. His family consists of his wife and children. His brother Ashok resides adjacent to him with his wife, children and their parents. The accused persons are distantly related to them and reside in the same lane at some distance. Around 2.00 a.m. on 4th June 2012, accused No.1 Manohar with one child in conflict with law and their friend had pulled the hand of Ashok's daughter with ill-intention. Ashok had lodged a report regarding the said incident with MIDC Paithan Police Station. Accused No.1 had, therefore, a grudge against Ashok and family. On 2nd July 2012, around 8.30 p.m., Ashok, his wife Meerabai and mother Kantabai, PW-1 Subhash were sitting on Ota in front of their house. At that time, the two appellants came there and started abusing Ashok. Accused No.1 Manohar gave a blow with a sword on the head of Ashok, and accused No.2 Uttam gave a blow with a stick on the head of Ashok. Ashok fell down. Meerabai and Kantabai tried to intervene, but they were also assaulted. Ashok succumbed to his injuries. The trial court convicted the appellants. The High Court, after hearing the appeal, found that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable. The identification of the accused was doubtful as no test identification parade was conducted. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove common intention under Section 34 IPC. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Benefit of Doubt - Appellants convicted for murder and causing grievous hurt - Prosecution case based on eye-witnesses and motive - Court found material inconsistencies in testimonies of key witnesses regarding presence, identification, and manner of assault - Held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, hence appellants entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-30). B) Evidence Law - Identification of Accused - Doubtful Identification - Witnesses claimed to have identified accused in moonlight and torchlight, but no test identification parade conducted - Court noted that identification for the first time in court without prior test identification is weak evidence - Held that such identification cannot be solely relied upon for conviction (Paras 15-20). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Requirement of Pre-arranged Plan - Prosecution alleged common intention but no evidence of prior concert or meeting of minds - Court observed that mere presence at scene does not establish common intention - Held that conviction under Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained without proof of shared intention (Paras 25-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Identification of accused
- Circumstantial evidence
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 326 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
