Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Salim Kadar Inamdar, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant appealed against this conviction. The facts leading to the prosecution are that the appellant was married to Rubina, daughter of complainant Nuruddin, on 19th October 1992. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered his wife. The High Court examined the evidence on record, including the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The court found that the evidence was full of inconsistencies and lacked credibility. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses - Held that where the evidence is full of contradictions and lacks credibility, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-10).
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 on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Murder
- Section 302 IPC
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Inconsistencies in Testimony
- Benefit of Doubt
