Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Shaikh Javed and Shaikh Asad, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for offences under Sections 302 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed against the conviction. The prosecution case was that on 27.8.2009 at about 22.30 hours, the appellants and other accused attacked the deceased Durgesh and informant Mangesh (PW1) with weapons, resulting in Durgesh's death. The trial court acquitted the appellants of charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 307 IPC, and also acquitted two other accused. The High Court, on appeal, found that the eye-witnesses turned hostile or gave inconsistent versions, and the identification of the appellants was doubtful. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and thus set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 IPC - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution case based on eye-witnesses - Witnesses turned hostile or gave inconsistent versions - Identification of accused doubtful - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when evidence is inconsistent and identification is doubtful - Benefit of doubt given to appellants (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Doubtful identification
- Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 3
Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2016
T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar
Mr. B.R. Warma for appellants, Mr. R.D. Sanap for respondent/State
Shaikh Javed s/o. Shaikh Lal and Shaikh Asad s/o. Shaikh Lal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing hurt.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal by challenging the trial court's conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 324 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 IPC, acquitted them of charges under SC/ST Act and Section 307 IPC, and acquitted two other accused.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was inconsistent and identification was doubtful.
Respondent/State supported the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
When the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and the identification of the accused is doubtful, the conviction cannot be sustained and the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The appeal is fled to challenge the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 430/2009...
In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows...
The incident in question took place on 27.8.2009 at about 22.30 hours.
Procedural History
The appellants were tried in Sessions Case No. 430/2009 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, convicted under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324, 34, 307
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
