Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Santosh Changu Karnekar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Mohammad Akbar Khan during a train robbery on 26 July 2002. The prosecution case relied heavily on the testimony of PW-1, Mohammad Tohid Khan, who was travelling with the deceased. According to PW-1, he saw the appellant taking a bag and later placing a knife on his chest, demanding money. He also claimed that the appellant stabbed the deceased when he resisted. However, the High Court found several discrepancies in PW-1's testimony. The FIR did not name the appellant, and PW-1 only described the assailant as a 'Maratha' person. The identification parade was conducted after a delay, and the court noted that the conditions on the train were not conducive to clear identification. The court also observed that PW-2, another passenger, did not support the prosecution case. The High Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Identification of Accused - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for murder based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness (PW-1) who claimed to have seen the appellant stab the deceased during a train robbery. The court found that the identification of the appellant by PW-1 was unreliable as the incident occurred in a moving train with poor lighting and the witness had only a fleeting glimpse. The court held that in the absence of corroboration, such testimony cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 1-8) B) Evidence Law - Sole Eyewitness Testimony - Corroboration - The court reiterated the principle that while conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, such testimony must be wholly reliable and trustworthy. In this case, the testimony of PW-1 was found to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility, as he did not mention the appellant's name in the FIR and his description of the assailant was vague. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sustainable when the identification is doubtful and there is lack of corroboration.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Identification of accused in criminal cases
- Reliability of sole eyewitness testimony
- Corroboration requirement in murder cases
- Benefit of doubt
