Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Suresh Jakku. The appellants, Ravi @ Rahul Dinesh Dangore and Akash @ Bhurya Raju Potraje (accused nos. 1 and 2) and Ashwini @ Munna Vishwasbandhu Prasad (accused no. 3), were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Chandrapur, for the murder of Suresh Jakku under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused no. 4 Kailash was acquitted. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of PW-1, the brother of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased with sticks and stones. The trial court convicted the appellants relying on this testimony and circumstantial evidence such as last seen and motive. The High Court, in appeal, scrutinized the evidence and found that PW-1 was an interested witness being the brother of the deceased, and his testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. The other witnesses turned hostile. The medical evidence did not support the manner of assault as described by PW-1. The last seen evidence was weak and not corroborated. The motive was not proved. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - Conviction based solely on testimony of brother of deceased, who was an interested witness, without independent corroboration, is unsustainable - Held that evidence of an interested witness must be scrutinized with care and caution, and conviction can be based on such evidence only if it is trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Last seen evidence must be coupled with other circumstances to complete chain of events - In the present case, last seen evidence was weak and not corroborated by independent witnesses - Held that mere last seen does not lead to presumption of guilt unless proximity of time and place is established (Paras 16-18). C) Criminal Law - Motive - Absence of motive weakens prosecution case but not fatal if other evidence is strong - In this case, motive was not proved and other evidence was insufficient - Held that absence of proved motive is a circumstance in favor of accused (Para 19). D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - To attract Section 34, there must be evidence of pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds - In absence of such evidence, conviction under Section 34 cannot be sustained - Held that common intention must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence (Para 20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of an interested witness and circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellants acquitted.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Interested witness
- Corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Motive
- Common intention
