Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nivrutti Ninaji Ghule, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, for the murder of his niece-in-law, Sharda, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident occurred on 23 April 2013, when the appellant allegedly assaulted Sharda with an axe, causing fatal injuries. The informant, PW1 (father-in-law of the deceased), lodged an FIR after being informed by PW8. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including PW8 as an eyewitness. However, PW8 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the axe and blood-stained clothes, to convict the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the sole eyewitness had turned hostile, and the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing only to the appellant's guilt. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and that the recovery of the weapon was not credible. The High Court held that the conviction was based on weak and unreliable evidence, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires that the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused - In this case, the sole eyewitness turned hostile and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-20). B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Credibility - Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Testimony of a hostile witness cannot be relied upon without corroboration from other independent evidence - The court held that the evidence of the hostile witness did not inspire confidence and could not form the basis of conviction (Paras 10-15). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Standard of Proof - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - When the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt - The court found that the prosecution's case suffered from material inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence, leading to acquittal (Paras 18-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28 December 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2013 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt
- Hostile witness testimony cannot be relied upon without corroboration
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
