Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anna Pandurang Avaghade, was convicted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, for the murder of his cousin Dilip Avaghade under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 18th May 1999, the deceased Dilip had gone to sleep at Mahadeo temple in the village, as was his usual practice. The appellant, who had a previous dispute with Dilip over singing at a marriage on 13th May 1999, allegedly assaulted Dilip with a stone while he was sleeping. The sole eyewitness, Rajendra Avaghade (PW-2), claimed to have seen the appellant hitting Dilip with a stone. The trial court relied on this testimony and convicted the appellant. In appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the testimony of Rajendra was not credible. There were material contradictions and improvements in his deposition. The court noted that Rajendra was a relative of the deceased and his evidence was not corroborated by any other witness or circumstance. The motive alleged was trivial and insufficient to prove guilt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole eyewitness - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was convicted for murder of his cousin. The sole eyewitness, Rajendra, claimed to have seen the appellant assault the deceased with a stone. However, his testimony was found to be unreliable due to contradictions and improvements. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Credibility of Witness - Sole Eyewitness - Testimony of interested witness - The eyewitness was a relative of the deceased and his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence. The court found material contradictions and held that such testimony cannot be the sole basis for conviction. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Motive - Insufficient motive - The alleged motive was a trivial dispute over singing at a marriage. The court observed that the motive was weak and not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness and motive is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Motive
- Identification of accused
- Credibility of witness
- Benefit of doubt
