Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dilip Madhukar Jadhav, was convicted by the 2nd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Kalyan for the murder of his brother Ravindra Jadhav under Section 302 IPC, criminal intimidation under Section 506(II) IPC, and offences under the Arms Act. The prosecution case relied primarily on the testimony of PW-1 Madhukar Jadhav (father of the deceased and accused) and PW-3 Jagdish Pagare (driver), who claimed that on 16.12.2002, they accompanied the deceased to the appellant's dhaba for a settlement meeting, where the appellant shot the deceased in the temple with a pistol and threatened them. The trial court convicted the appellant based on these eyewitness accounts. On appeal, the Bombay High Court scrutinized the evidence and found the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 to be highly contradictory, unnatural, and lacking in credibility. The court noted that PW-1's conduct after the incident was inconsistent with that of a truthful witness, and PW-3's testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. The recovery of the weapon was also not proved beyond doubt. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Unreliable Testimony - Conviction based on testimony of interested witnesses (father and driver) without independent corroboration - Held that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 was contradictory, unnatural, and lacked credibility, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-20). B) Criminal Law - Arms Act - Illegal Possession of Firearm - Conviction under Sections 3, 25(1-B)(a) read with Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 - Recovery of weapon not proved - No independent witness to recovery - Held that the conviction under the Arms Act is unsustainable (Paras 15-18). C) Criminal Law - Motive - Family Disputes - Existence of prior disputes between brothers - Held that motive alone is insufficient to sustain conviction without reliable evidence of the actual incident (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 506(II) of IPC and Sections 3, 25(1-B)(a) read with Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Unreliable testimony
- Corroboration
- Benefit of doubt
- Circumstantial evidence
- Motive
- Last seen theory
