Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was instituted by the appellants-accused, Dnyaneshwar Arjun Bhagwat (A-1) and Arjun Sakhahari Bhagwat (A-2), against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16th May, 2014 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2011. They were convicted and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The case of the prosecution was that on 20/04/2011 at about 10.00 a.m., the informant (PW1) was proceeding towards his house through Maruti Galli from Jategaon S.T. Stand. When he reached near Maruti Temple, a motorcycle dashed him from behind, causing him to fall. The motorcycle was ridden by his nephew Dnyaneshwar (A-1) and his brother Arjun (A-2). When the informant confronted A-1, both accused got down, abused him, and when the informant's younger brother Balu Sakhahari Bhagwat intervened, A-2 caught hold of Balu and A-1 gave a blow of a tommy (a type of weapon) on his head, causing a bleeding injury. Balu was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries. The informant also sustained injuries. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including eyewitnesses PW1 (informant) and PW2 (another eyewitness), and relied on a dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. PW1 and PW2 gave contradictory versions regarding the incident, and the dying declaration was found to be unreliable as it was not consistent with the medical evidence and other circumstances. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC - Appeal against conviction - Appellants convicted for murder of Balu Sakhahari Bhagwat - Prosecution case based on eyewitness account and dying declaration - Held that material contradictions and inconsistencies in testimonies of eyewitnesses and dying declaration render the prosecution case doubtful - Conviction set aside (Paras 1-14). B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Dying declaration must be consistent and trustworthy - In the present case, dying declaration suffered from contradictions and was not corroborated by medical evidence - Held that such dying declaration cannot form sole basis for conviction (Paras 8-12). C) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony - Testimony of interested witnesses must be scrutinized with care - Inconsistencies and improvements in evidence of PW1 and PW2 found - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on such shaky evidence (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. They be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Dying declaration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 27 Evidence Act
