Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Popat Bapu Mandale, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of Ashok Jadhav, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident occurred on 25 October 2009 at village Alegaon, where the deceased was allegedly attacked with an axe by the appellant. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of PW3 Bandu Jadhav (informant and brother of deceased) and PW4 Priyanka (wife of PW3), who claimed to have witnessed the attack. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that the FIR was antetimed and that the eyewitnesses had made material improvements. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that PW3's testimony contained contradictions and improvements, and his presence at the scene was doubtful given the delay in lodging the FIR. PW4's testimony was found to be a mere repetition of PW3's account. PW5 Sanjay Koli, a neighbor, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The court noted that the homicidal nature of death was not disputed, but the identity of the assailant was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony - Appeal against conviction - Homicidal death not disputed - Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen accused inflicting axe blows - Court found material contradictions and improvements in testimony of PW3 (informant) and PW4 (wife) - PW3's presence at scene doubtful due to delay in lodging FIR and lack of corroboration - PW5 (neighbor) turned hostile - Held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside and accused acquitted (Paras 1-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder is sustainable based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and other circumstances.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal
- Credibility of eyewitnesses
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Homicidal death
- Identification of accused
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Mrs. Swapna S. Joshi
Mr. D. G. Khamkar for the Appellant, Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent/State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 30/4/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.20/2010.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murder of Ashok Jadhav and sentenced to life imprisonment; he appealed on grounds of false implication and lack of credible evidence.
Previous Decisions
Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and default RI for 3 months.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of eyewitnesses PW3 and PW4?
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel argued that FIR was antetimed and appellant was falsely implicated; PW3 made material improvements and did not see the offence; PW4 merely repeated PW3's account; PW5 turned hostile.
Respondent/State argued that the homicidal death was not disputed and the eyewitnesses' testimony was credible.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where eyewitness testimony is found to be unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, and lack of corroboration, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
Before us homicidal nature of death of Ashok is not in dispute.
Mr.Khamkar, learned counsel submitted that FIR was antetimed and appellant/accused has been implicated in a false case.
Procedural History
The incident occurred on 25/10/2009. FIR lodged at 11:50 p.m. on same day. Investigation transferred to Sangola Police Station, which registered Crime No.343/2009 under Section 302 IPC. Chargesheet filed in JMFC, Sangola, committed to Sessions Court. Sessions Case No.20/2010 resulted in conviction on 30/4/2012. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.489/2015 in Bombay High Court, which was allowed on 03/07/2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
