Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Atmaram Ganpat Medgottalwar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli for the murder of Vacchalabai under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 22 November 2014, the appellant gave an axe blow on the head of the deceased, who was his sister-in-law, due to anger over his wife deserting him. The sole eyewitness, Bajirao (PW3), claimed to have seen the incident. The deceased died in the hospital on the same day. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the testimony of PW3 was unreliable due to material contradictions and improvements. PW3 stated in cross-examination that he did not see the actual blow but only saw the appellant running with an axe. Other witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The medical evidence did not corroborate the eyewitness account. The court held that the sole eyewitness testimony was not wholly reliable and lacked corroboration. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sole Eyewitness - The appellant was convicted for murder based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness (PW3). The High Court found the testimony of PW3 unreliable due to material contradictions and improvements, and lack of corroboration from other witnesses or medical evidence. Held that conviction based on such testimony is unsafe and liable to be set aside (Paras 7-12). B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Corroboration - Section 134 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court reiterated that while conviction can be based on sole eyewitness testimony, it must be wholly reliable. In this case, the sole eyewitness's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence and contained material improvements. Held that in the absence of corroboration, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Sole eyewitness testimony
- Corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Benefit of doubt
