Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Nishant Nandu Kamble, Nandu Ishwara Kamble, and Rahul Nandu Kamble, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, for the murder of Vishwas Kamble under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident occurred on 24 October 2012, when the deceased was allegedly assaulted by the appellants. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of Tanaji Kamble (PW1), the uncle of the deceased, and other witnesses. However, the High Court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence. The witnesses gave contradictory accounts regarding the number of assailants, the weapons used, and the sequence of events. The medical evidence showed that the deceased had a single injury, which was inconsistent with the claim of multiple assaults. The identification of the appellants was also doubtful as the incident occurred at night and the witnesses were not reliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on doubtful identification and inconsistent evidence - The appellants were convicted for murder of Vishwas Kamble. The High Court found that the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding the identity of the assailants and the manner of assault. The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony and medical evidence create doubt
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
- Identification of accused must be clear and reliable
