Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dilip Namdeo Gade, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for the murder of Pushpa Nakade under Section 302 IPC and for causing hurt to Ambadas Khedkar under Section 324 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. The prosecution case was that on 16 September 2012, at about 7:30 AM, the appellant assaulted Pushpa with an axe in the front yard of her house, and when her brother Ambadas intervened, the appellant also assaulted him. The FIR was lodged by Ambadas (PW-1) on the same day. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimonies of PW-1 and his wife Prayagbai (PW-2), who claimed to be eyewitnesses. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions between the FIR, the testimony of PW-1, and the testimony of PW-2. Specifically, PW-1 stated in the FIR that he saw the appellant assaulting Pushpa, but in his deposition, he claimed that he saw the appellant from behind and identified him only when he turned. PW-2, on the other hand, stated that she saw the appellant from the front and that he was wearing a shirt, whereas PW-1 said he was bare-bodied. The court also noted that the station diary entries did not support the prosecution's version. The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was unreliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on sole eyewitness - Material contradictions - The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 (wife of informant) as eyewitnesses. The court found material contradictions between their testimonies regarding the identity of the assailant and the manner of assault. The court held that when the evidence of the sole eyewitness is riddled with contradictions and improvements, it is unsafe to base a conviction. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Law - Identification of accused - Doubtful identification - The informant (PW-1) claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased, but his testimony was inconsistent with the FIR and his wife's testimony. The court noted that the accused was a neighbour and known to the witnesses, yet the identification was doubtful due to contradictions. Held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 10-18) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of doubt - Acquittal - The court found that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the eyewitnesses was unreliable and there were material omissions and contradictions. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellant to be set at liberty. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.08.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.423/2012 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- conviction based on sole eyewitness
- material contradictions
- identification of accused
- failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
