Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Satish Bansi Lagad, Bansi Kisan Lagad, Kisan Ganpat Lagad, and Aashabai Bansi Lagad, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 12-06-2017 in Sessions Case No.148 of 2015 for offences under Sections 302 and 324 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and six months simple imprisonment respectively. The prosecution case was that on 12-03-2015, the deceased Dattatraya was attacked by the appellants due to a love affair between the deceased and the daughter of accused no.2. The incident occurred at around 7:00 p.m. when the deceased was parking his motorcycle. Accused no.1 allegedly hit him with a torch, and then accused no.2 caught hold of him while accused no.1 stabbed him with a knife on the back. The deceased's family members, who were eyewitnesses, claimed they were also assaulted when they tried to intervene. The deceased was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. The trial court relied on the testimony of PW1 (sister), PW2 (father), PW3 (mother), and PW4 (brother) to convict the appellants. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the eyewitnesses were interested witnesses being family members, and their testimony suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies. The medical evidence did not fully support the ocular version, and there was no independent corroboration. The court also noted that the common intention under Section 34 IPC was not established against all accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witnesses - Conviction based solely on testimony of family members without independent corroboration is unsafe - Held that evidence of interested witnesses must be scrutinized with care and corroboration is essential (Paras 20-30). B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Absence of overt act by some accused - Mere presence not sufficient to attract Section 34 - Held that common intention must be proved by evidence of prior concert or conduct (Paras 31-35). C) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Inconsistency with Ocular Testimony - Discrepancy between number of injuries and medical evidence - Held that medical evidence must corroborate ocular version (Paras 36-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 324 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of interested witnesses and lack of independent corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Interested witnesses
- Corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Benefit of doubt
