Bombay High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Doubtful Identification. Conviction under Sections 302, 324, 449 read with 149 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Laxman Babulal Rajput, Prakash Babulal Rajput, and Harisingh Babulal Rajput, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.425/1984 for offences punishable under Sections 144, 148, 302, 324, 449 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines. The case arose from an incident on 19.04.1984 when the informant, Molli Sampat Pilley, alleged that the appellants and other accused entered her hut armed with weapons, assaulted her cousin Mohan Shetty, and chased her husband Sampat Pilley into a creek where he was killed. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the informant and other witnesses. However, the High Court found material inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly regarding the identification of the appellants. The informant's testimony was contradictory about the number of accused and their roles. The court noted that the appellants were not named in the First Information Report and were only identified later under doubtful circumstances. The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution's version. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted them, giving them the benefit of doubt.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Unlawful Assembly - Common Intention - Sections 302, 324, 449 read with 149 IPC - Conviction set aside due to inconsistent evidence and doubtful identification - The prosecution failed to establish the presence and participation of the appellants in the alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants (Paras 1-23).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 324, 449 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.06.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.425/1984 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

Law Points

  • Benefit of doubt
  • Inconsistent evidence
  • Identification of accused
  • Common intention
  • Unlawful assembly
  • Murder
  • Hurt
  • House-trespass
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (07) 45

Criminal Appeal No.601 of 1998

2021-07-03

Prasanna B. Varale, Surendra P. Tavade

Ms. Prabha Mane a/w. Mr. Amit Mane for the Appellants, Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State

Laxman Babulal Rajput, Prakash Babulal Rajput, Harisingh Babulal Rajput

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and other offences.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 144, 148, 302, 324, 449 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay convicted the appellants in Sessions Case No.425/1984 on 20.06.1998.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the identification of the appellants was reliable. Whether the evidence was consistent and credible.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was inconsistent and the identification was doubtful. Prosecution argued that the testimony of the informant and other witnesses established the guilt.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent evidence and doubtful identification. Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Judgment Excerpts

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.06.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.425/1984, the original Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal. The appellants and the original Accused No.5 have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s.144, 148, 302, 324, 449 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 20.06.1998 in Sessions Case No.425/1984. They appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 03.07.2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 144, 148, 302, 324, 449, 149, 143, 326, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Dowry Death Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Demand of Dowry and Harassment. Conviction under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, 201 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove dowry demand and cruelty beyond reasonable do...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Temporary Injunction in Lease Dispute — Plaintiff Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case of Possession After Lease Expiry. The court held that the plaintiff did not make out a prima f...