Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ibraya @ Iqbal Ajij Mujawar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence. The prosecution case was that on 26.3.2002, the appellant, the deceased Pradeep Yadav, and others had gone to attend an obsequial ceremony. After the programme, while returning, the appellant suddenly caught hold of the deceased and inflicted 3 to 4 blows with a knife on his chest. The deceased shouted for help, and others asked the appellant to leave him. According to PW-1 Shivaji Kadam, the appellant then rushed towards him with a knife, and PW-1 ran away. The deceased jumped into a canal, and the appellant also jumped in, leading to a scuffle. The knife fell into the water, and the appellant ran away. The deceased was taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries. The appellant appealed against his conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-1, the sole eyewitness. The court noted that PW-1's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he did not tell the doctor the name of the assailant, nor did he mention the appellant's name in the FIR initially. The court found that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the appellant had been in custody for over 10 years. 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 - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony - The appellant was convicted for murder but the High Court found the evidence of the sole eyewitness (PW-1) to be inconsistent and unreliable, as his version changed over time and he did not disclose the appellant's name to the doctor or in the FIR initially. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant giving him the benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Doubtful identification
- Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
