Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Wasudeo s/o Madhukar Khadatkar, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Naresh Mankar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The prosecution case was that on 29th March 1996 at about 9:00 p.m., the deceased was in a square near a school in village Jatanzari when the accused came and threatened him. The sole eyewitness, PW-1, claimed to have seen the accused assault the deceased with a stick. However, PW-2 and PW-3, who were also present, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The medical evidence showed that the deceased died due to head injuries. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the testimony of PW-1 was inconsistent and unreliable. PW-1 had given different versions at different stages and his evidence was not corroborated by any other witness. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Sole Eyewitness Testimony - The appellant was convicted for murder based solely on the testimony of PW-1, whose evidence was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. The court held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness must be trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence to sustain a conviction. Since PW-1's testimony was not corroborated by other witnesses and contained contradictions, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-15) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Hostile Witness - The prosecution examined PW-2 and PW-3 who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court noted that their testimony did not corroborate the eyewitness account, weakening the prosecution's case. (Paras 10-12) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Conviction - Benefit of Doubt - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sustainable when the witness's evidence is inconsistent and lacks corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded. Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony requires corroboration if witness is unreliable
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain
