Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of three appellants for the murder of Mayur Damle under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and for assault under Section 352 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 11th April 2007, the deceased and his friend PW 3 Tirathsingh were consuming liquor on the terrace of Parshuram Apartment when the appellants, who were neighbors, came and assaulted the deceased with sticks and fists, causing fatal injuries. The sole eyewitness was PW 3, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The trial court convicted the appellants based on his testimony. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found several discrepancies. The medical evidence indicated that the time of death was around 9:30 p.m., but PW 3 stated the incident occurred later. The injuries described by PW 3 did not fully match the post-mortem report. Moreover, PW 3 was an interested witness being a close friend of the deceased, and his testimony lacked independent corroboration. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine other potential witnesses and that the recovery of weapons was not properly linked. The High Court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's reliance on the sole testimony of an interested witness was erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witness - Testimony of PW 3, a close friend of the deceased, was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness (Paras 20-30). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Inconsistencies in prosecution case - Medical evidence contradicted ocular testimony regarding time of death and nature of injuries - Held that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and inconsistencies must be resolved in favor of accused (Paras 15-25). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against conviction - Appellate court's power to re-appreciate evidence - Held that appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 352 read with 34 IPC based on the testimony of PW 3, an interested witness, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witness requires corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
