Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.65 of 1996 for the murder of Mahadeo Kamble. The prosecution case was that on 11.12.1995 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused persons assaulted the deceased with an iron bar, stick, gupti, etc., and he died in hospital. A complaint was lodged by Kiran Kamble, and after investigation, the accused were tried. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC and other connected sections, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found a major inconsistency in the prosecution's case regarding the recovery of weapons (stick and crowbar). P.W. 7 Bapu Kamble testified that he saw the accused dropping the stick and crowbar by the roadside after the assault. However, P.W. 2 Dinkar Jadhav, a panch witness, stated that the same weapons were seized at the instance of one Kalu Kamble from Harijan vasti. This contradiction made the recovery evidence unreliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to this inconsistency. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed that they be set at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Benefit of Doubt - Appellants convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence including recovery of weapons - Recovery evidence found inconsistent as one witness claimed weapons were dropped by accused by roadside while another witness claimed recovery from a different location at instance of a co-accused - Held that such inconsistency creates doubt and entitles accused to benefit of doubt (Paras 5-6). B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies - Major inconsistency in prosecution evidence regarding recovery of weapons renders the entire recovery unreliable - Court must consider totality of circumstances and if evidence is discrepant, accused must be acquitted (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC and other connected sections is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. They be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Recovery evidence unreliable
- Circumstantial evidence
- Homicidal death proved but assailants not identified beyond doubt
