Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Babasaheb Deoram Arane, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of Rafiq Maniyar. The prosecution case was that on 5th May 2011, the deceased received a phone call from the accused and left his house on his motorcycle. Later, the deceased called his wife, PW-2 Farjana, informing her that he had been assaulted by the accused and his associates. PW-2, along with PW-3 Peer Mohammad, went to the spot and found the deceased lying injured. The deceased later died. The trial court convicted the appellant based primarily on the testimony of PW-2, who claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that PW-2's testimony was unreliable due to material contradictions and improvements. The court noted that PW-2 was an interested witness being the widow of the deceased, and her testimony required corroboration, which was lacking. The circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witness - Testimony of PW-2, widow of deceased, being the sole eye-witness, is that of an interested witness and requires corroboration - Held that conviction cannot be based solely on such testimony without independent corroboration, especially when there are material contradictions and improvements (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last seen theory - Prosecution failed to establish that accused was last seen with deceased beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent only with guilt of accused (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - When prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt - Held that the appeal is allowed and conviction set aside (Para 21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on the testimony of PW-2 (widow of deceased) and other circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witness requires corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent with guilt
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
