Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Waghya alias Manoj Bhaiyalal Uke and Sandip s/o Bhaiyalal Uke, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Wardha, for the murder of Pintu under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed to the Bombay High Court. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Jayshri Waghmare (PW4), who claimed to be an eye witness. The appellants' counsel argued that PW4 was a planted witness and that without her evidence, there was no material to connect them to the crime. They also contended that the prosecution failed to prove motive and that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment, warranting a lesser offence. The State opposed the appeal, arguing that PW4's evidence was credible and corroborated by the Chemical Analyser's report showing blood group 'B' on the appellants' clothes, matching the deceased's blood group. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that PW4's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and improvements, and that the prosecution had not proved motive. The court also noted that the role of appellant no.2 was limited to assault by fists and kicks, and the incident was sudden, making Section 302 IPC inapplicable. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted both appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Eye Witness Credibility - The court examined the testimony of Jayshri Waghmare (PW4), the sole eye witness, and found her to be a planted witness due to contradictions and improvements in her evidence, making her testimony unreliable. (Paras 3-5)
B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - The prosecution failed to prove motive for the murder, which is a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of the prosecution case. (Para 3)
C) Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Culpable Homicide - The court held that the role attributed to appellant no.2-Sandip was only of assault by fists and kicks, which does not attract Section 302 IPC. For appellant no.1-Waghya, the incident occurred in a spur of the moment, and at most, he could be convicted under Section 304-I IPC. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of the sole eye witness Jayshri Waghmare (PW4) and other circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No.115/2015 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Eye witness credibility
- Planted witness
- Circumstantial evidence
- Motive
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 304-I IPC
- Section 34 IPC
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (08) 70
Criminal Appeal No.343/2018
V. M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Mr. Amit Band, Mr. Ashwin Wasnik, Mr. Sanjay Doifode
Waghya alias Manoj Bhaiyalal Uke and Sandip s/o Bhaiyalal Uke
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal by challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Wardha.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of Pintu and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Judge, Wardha convicted the appellants on 09.05.2018 in Sessions Case No.115/2015.
Issues
Whether the testimony of Jayshri Waghmare (PW4) as an eye witness is reliable?
Whether the prosecution proved motive for the murder?
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable given the role attributed to each appellant?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that PW4 is a planted witness and her evidence should be discarded; without her, there is no evidence linking them to the crime.
Appellants argued that prosecution failed to prove motive.
Appellants argued that appellant no.2 only assaulted with fists and kicks, so cannot be guilty under Section 302 IPC; appellant no.1 acted in spur of moment, so at most liable under Section 304-I IPC.
State argued that PW4's evidence is credible and corroborated by CA report showing blood group 'B' on appellants' clothes.
Ratio Decidendi
The sole eye witness Jayshri Waghmare (PW4) was found to be a planted witness and her testimony was unreliable. The prosecution failed to prove motive. The role attributed to appellant no.2 was only assault by fists and kicks, and the incident occurred on the spur of the moment, making Section 302 IPC inapplicable. Hence, the conviction was unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The main plank of their submission is that Jayshri Waghmare (PW4), who is examined as an eye witness in this prosecution case, is not an eye witness and, in fact, she is planted by the police.
Alternatively, it is their submission that, in any case, role attributed to appellant no.2-Sandip is that he assaulted by fists and kicks. Therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
So far as appellant no.1-Waghya is concerned, their submission is that the incident has occurred in a spur of the moment, therefore, at the most, he could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I of the IPC.
Procedural History
The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Wardha on 09.05.2018 in Sessions Case No.115/2015 for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They filed Criminal Appeal No.343/2018 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and decided on 31.08.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34, 304-I
