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

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 41
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case pertains to an appeal against the conviction of four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Ravis, the son of the first informant. The prosecution alleged that on 13 October 2005, the appellants, including the deceased's tractor driver Ankush Chapte, assaulted Ravis with sticks and axes, causing his death. The trial court convicted all appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimonies of PW1 (father) and PW2 (wife), who claimed to be eye-witnesses. The court found their testimonies inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking corroboration from independent witnesses. The medical evidence did not align with the alleged assault. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Appeal against conviction - Appellants convicted for murder of deceased Ravis - Prosecution relied on testimony of father (PW1) and wife (PW2) as eye-witnesses - Court found their testimony unreliable due to contradictions and improvements - No corroboration from independent witnesses - Medical evidence did not support prosecution version - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2005 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

Law Points

  • Benefit of doubt
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Last seen theory
  • Testimony of interested witnesses
  • Corroboration
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 23

Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2014

2019-10-01

T.V. Nalawade, K.K. Sonawane

Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar (for Appellants), Mr. A.R. Kale (APP for Respondent)

Ankush S/o Manohar Chapte, Vijay S/o Waman Mane, Rasul Imamsab Sheikh, Fayaj Rahimoddin Sayed

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2005 dated 22.01.2014

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine

Issues

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and lacked corroboration. Respondent-State argued that the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 were credible and sufficient for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction cannot be sustained as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable testimonies of interested witnesses and lack of corroboration.

Judgment Excerpts

The instant appeal calls-in-question the legality and propriety of impugned Judgment and order of conviction of the appellants-accused and resultant sentence rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur, in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2005 dated 22.01.2014.

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur on 22.01.2014 in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2005 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They filed Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed on 01.10.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes 26-Year-Old COFEPOSA Detention Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Execution — Preventive Detention Order Loses Its Rationale When Executed After 26 Years Without Explanation
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Income Tax Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 144C Procedure. Tribunal's Order Upheld as Draft Assessment Order Not Served to Assessee, Violating Mandatory Requirement.