Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original accused Nos. 5, 6, and 8, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, for the murder of one person under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on the night of the incident, the deceased was attacked by multiple accused with weapons like sticks and axes. The sole eyewitness was PW-1, the wife of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the assault. The trial court relied on her testimony and convicted the appellants. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence. The court noted that PW-1 was a close relative and her testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. Moreover, the medical evidence (PW-5 doctor) indicated that the injuries on the deceased were not consistent with the weapons allegedly used by the appellants as described by PW-1. The number of assailants and the manner of assault also conflicted with the medical findings. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence created a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Sole Testimony of Related Witness - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based solely on the testimony of PW-1, wife of deceased, who claimed to have witnessed the assault - Medical evidence showed injuries inconsistent with the alleged weapons and number of assailants - Held that the testimony of a related witness, though not automatically unreliable, requires careful scrutiny and corroboration; in this case, the inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration rendered the prosecution case doubtful, leading to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased is sustainable when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole testimony of related witness requires corroboration
- Inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence weakens prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
