Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Eye-Witnesses' Evidence Found Inconsistent and Recovery Doubtful.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Ranjeet s/o Haribhau Jadhav, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani, for the murder of Datta under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was that on 03.06.2016, the appellant, along with other accused, assaulted the deceased with a handle of an axe and a knife, leading to his death. The trial court relied on the testimony of PW6 Jaya (widow of deceased) and PW7 Nilabai (relative), and recovery of weapons. The High Court found that the eye-witnesses were interested and their testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The recovery of weapons was doubtful as no independent witnesses were examined. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on interested witnesses - Testimony of PW6 and PW7, being relatives of deceased, requires careful scrutiny and corroboration - Held that their evidence was inconsistent and not reliable (Paras 5-10).

B) Criminal Law - Recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act - Doubtful recovery - Recovery of weapon not supported by independent witnesses and panchas not examined - Held that such recovery cannot be used to convict (Paras 11-12).

C) Criminal Law - Motive - Absence of motive - Incident arising from petty quarrel - Held that absence of motive is not fatal but weakens prosecution case (Para 4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act is sustainable based on the evidence of interested witnesses and recovery.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.

Law Points

  • Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witnesses requires corroboration
  • Recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act must be free from doubt
  • Motive is not essential but absence weakens prosecution case
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 28

Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2019

2023-12-13

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase

2023:BHC-AUG:26653-DB

Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke (for Appellant), Mrs. V. S. Choudhary (APP for Respondent)

Ranjeet s/o Haribhau Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and arms act offences.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 22.01.2019 in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2016.

Previous Decisions

Sessions Judge, Parbhani convicted appellant on 22.01.2019.

Issues

Whether the testimony of PW6 and PW7, being interested witnesses, is reliable without corroboration? Whether the recovery of weapons under Section 27 of Evidence Act is credible? Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that implication is on weak evidence, no motive, evidence of PW6 and PW7 is unreliable, recovery doubtful, no independent witnesses examined. Respondent argued that evidence of eye-witnesses is consistent and recovery supports prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction based on testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration and doubtful recovery cannot be sustained. Prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

Instant appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Parbhani dated 22.01.2019 in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2016 convicting appellant-accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act. Learned Sessions Judge reached to a finding that offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act is made out only against present appellant.

Procedural History

FIR lodged on 03.06.2016 by PW6 Jaya. Investigation by PW10 PI Sudarshan Bhange. Chargesheet filed. Trial in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2016. Conviction on 22.01.2019. Appeal filed on 13.12.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
  • Arms Act, 1959: 27, 5
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Upholds Life Conviction for Murder by Pouring Hot Water on Wife. Dying Declaration and Medical Evidence Sufficient to Prove Intent to Kill Under Section 302 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Husband's Petition Challenging Jurisdiction in DV Act Case — Wife's Complaint Filed at Chalisgaon Court Lacks Territorial Jurisdiction as No Party Resides There. Section 27 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,...