Case Note & Summary
The case arises from two criminal appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 19/01/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2011. The appellants, six accused persons, were convicted for the murder of Raosaheb Bhange under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000 each. The prosecution case was that on the date of incident, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased with weapons, causing his death. The sole eyewitness was Shivkanya (PW-1), the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The trial court relied on her testimony to convict all accused. The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the evidence of PW-1 was unreliable as she was an interested witness, her testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence, and there was no corroboration from independent witnesses or circumstantial evidence. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that PW-1's testimony was not credible. The medical evidence showed that the deceased had only one injury, which was not consistent with the multiple blows alleged by PW-1. Moreover, the other prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the conviction based solely on the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration was unsafe. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly or common object. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - Testimony of sole eyewitness who is related to deceased requires corroboration - The court held that the evidence of PW-1, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased, was highly interested and her testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence or other circumstances, leading to reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - The prosecution failed to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly or common object beyond reasonable doubt - The court held that the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was unsustainable as the evidence did not establish that the accused shared a common object to commit murder (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC based on the testimony of a single interested witness is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19/01/2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Interested witness
- Corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Benefit of doubt
