Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Credible Witnesses. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 63
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, original accused nos. 1 to 5, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Satara on 17/5/2010 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution case was that the deceased Prakash had worked as a driver on a truck owned by accused no. 3 Dnyaneshwar, who did not pay his salary of Rs. 5000. On 17/09/2008 at about 10.00 pm, the accused persons came to Prakash's house, called him out, and took him near their house where a quarrel ensued. Accused no. 1 Dattatraya thrust a gupti into Prakash's chest, and the other accused also assaulted him, causing his death. The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to eliminate the deceased. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence, noting that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile or gave inconsistent statements. The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 302, 149, 143, 147, 148, 324 IPC - Conviction set aside - Appeal against conviction for murder - Prosecution case based on eye-witnesses - Witnesses turned hostile or gave inconsistent statements - Medical evidence not corroborating ocular evidence - Held that conviction cannot be sustained as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-18).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other sections is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Satara on 17/5/2010 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

Law Points

  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 149 IPC
  • Section 324 IPC
  • Section 143 IPC
  • Section 147 IPC
  • Section 148 IPC
  • Section 374(2) CrPC
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019:BHC-AS:19043-DB

Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2010

2019-07-04

B.P. Dharmadhikari, Mrs. Swapna S. Joshi

2019:BHC-AS:19043-DB

Mr. Chaitanya Pendse, Mr. Sujit Jagtap, Ms. Siddhi Bhosale, Mr. Kuldeep Patil for the appellants; Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State

Dattatraya Vitthal Dhamal, Vitthal Maruti Dhamal, Dnyaneshwar Keshav Khadasare, Mrs. Shalan Vitthal Dhamal, Mrs. Chhaya Dattatraya Dhamal

The State of Maharashtra, Sonam Prakash Gaikwad

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and other offences.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other sections for the murder of Prakash Gaikwad.

Previous Decisions

Sessions Judge, Satara convicted the appellants on 17/5/2010 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009.

Issues

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other sections is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile or gave inconsistent statements, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony, thus the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses turned hostile or gave inconsistent statements, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony.

Judgment Excerpts

By this appeal filed under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. the original accused nos. 1 to 5 question their conviction under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and under sections 143, 147 and 148 as also under section 324 read with section 149 IPC by Sessions Judge, Satara on 17/5/2010 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009.

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Satara on 17/5/2010 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009. They appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 374(2) CrPC.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 149, 143, 147, 148, 324
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 374(2)
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Credible Witnesses. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case Based on Incomplete Circumstantial Evidence. Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Due to Broken Chain of Circumstantial Evidence and Lack of Motive