Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Waman Bodke, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.271/2012 for the murder of his cousin Samadhan Motiram Bodke, along with co-accused Pandarinath Dattu Bodke. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused had a land dispute with the deceased's father and that the appellant had an evil eye on the deceased's wife. On 13 September 2012, the deceased left his house at about 8:30 a.m. with a sickle and rope to cut grass. The first informant, Motiram Mathhu Bodke (father of the deceased), received a phone call from Bhaguji Punja Bodke informing him that accused Pandarinath had assaulted Samadhan with a sickle. The deceased was taken to Trimbakeshwar hospital where he was declared dead. The FIR was lodged against both accused. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant appealed against his conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the presence of the appellant at the scene and the manner of assault. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony - The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The court found material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the presence of the appellant at the scene and the manner of assault. Held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 10-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.271/2012 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
