Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of four appellants (Sanjay Datta Shinde, Sanjay Prakash Bachalkar, Prathmesh alias Nana Ankush Rode, and Mayur Vilas Pusnake) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2017 dated 03.10.2018. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with appellant no.3 also convicted under Sections 324 and 506 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 10.08.2016, the appellants assaulted the deceased Amit and injured Ashish (PW1) with weapons like sticks and knives due to previous enmity. The injured Ashish gave a statement (Exh.39) to API Santosh Kendre (PW13) at the hospital, which was treated as the First Information Report. The trial court relied heavily on the testimony of PW1 Ashish, who claimed to be an eye-witness. However, the High Court found that PW1's testimony was unreliable because: (1) The doctor (PW2) had initially declared PW1 unfit for statement, but later gave a fitness certificate; (2) PW1's statement was recorded after he was declared unfit, raising doubts about its voluntariness; (3) PW1's testimony contained material contradictions with medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses; (4) The other alleged eye-witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) turned hostile or did not support the prosecution. The court also noted that the incident occurred suddenly without premeditation, negating common intention under Section 34 IPC. The medical evidence showed that the deceased died due to head injuries, but the exact role of each appellant was not established. The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting all appellants of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Injured Witness - Testimony of injured witness must be scrutinized with care and caution when there are material contradictions and improvements - The court held that the testimony of PW1, the injured witness, was unreliable due to contradictions with medical evidence and other witnesses, and his statement was recorded after he was declared unfit for statement by the doctor - Held that conviction cannot be based on such testimony (Paras 10-20). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC requires proof of common intention to cause death - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove common intention among all appellants as the incident occurred suddenly without premeditation - Held that the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is unsustainable (Paras 21-25). C) Criminal Law - Hurt - Section 324 IPC - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - The court held that the conviction of appellant no.3 under Section 324 IPC was not supported by reliable evidence as the medical evidence did not corroborate the nature of injuries caused - Held that the conviction under Section 324 IPC is set aside (Paras 26-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and other offences is sustainable based on the testimony of the injured witness (PW1) and other evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2017 dated 03.10.2018 is set aside. All the appellants are acquitted of all charges. The appellants who are in jail are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid, be refunded.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Injured witness testimony
- Corroboration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Benefit of doubt
