Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Milind Hanumant Shinde, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati for the murder of a 10-year-old boy, Prathamesh, and for attempting to murder the victim (PW-2) under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The incident occurred on 7th January 2011 near a water tank in Daund. The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of PW-2, the injured witness, who claimed that the appellant attacked her and her son with a knife. The appellant was arrested at the spot. The trial court convicted the appellant based on PW-2's testimony. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The court found that PW-2's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which indicated that the injuries on PW-2 could not have been caused by a knife as alleged. Additionally, there were contradictions regarding the time of the incident and the presence of other witnesses. The prosecution failed to establish any motive for the crime. The court held that the sole testimony of an injured witness, though ordinarily entitled to weight, must be scrutinized carefully and must be corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the lack of corroboration and the inconsistencies rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court also noted that the appellant was found at the spot, but this circumstance alone was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on sole testimony of injured witness - Testimony of injured witness (PW-2) was found to be unreliable due to contradictions with medical evidence and lack of corroboration - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on such testimony alone (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Motive - Absence of motive - Prosecution failed to establish any motive for the accused to commit the murder - Held that absence of motive, though not fatal, is a relevant factor when other evidence is weak (Para 16) C) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Inconsistencies - The prosecution case suffered from material inconsistencies regarding the time of incident, weapon used, and presence of witnesses - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused (Paras 17-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on the testimony of the injured witness (PW-2) is sustainable in the absence of corroboration and in light of inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole testimony of injured witness must be scrutinized with caution
- Testimony of injured witness must be corroborated by medical evidence or other circumstances
- Benefit of doubt arises when prosecution fails to prove motive and circumstances are inconsistent with guilt
