Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tikaram Krishnalal Pandey, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Murugan and causing hurt to his wife Mallika. The incident occurred on the night of 18-19 January 2003 at about 2 a.m. on the footpath of Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai, where the deceased and his wife, along with others, were sleeping. According to the prosecution, the appellant hit Mallika with a stone and then struck Murugan on the head with the same stone, causing his death. The sole eyewitness was PW 2 Mallika, the wife of the deceased. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court challenging the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW 2 Mallika. The court noted that the incident occurred at 2 a.m. in darkness, and PW 2 claimed to have identified the appellant by moonlight and streetlight. However, she did not know the appellant prior to the incident, and no test identification parade was conducted. The court found her identification unreliable. Additionally, the medical evidence contradicted her version: she stated that the deceased was hit with a stone, but the post-mortem report indicated injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, not necessarily a stone. The stone recovered from the scene had no blood stains. The court also noted that other witnesses, PW 3 and PW 4, who were sleeping nearby, did not support the prosecution case. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The identification of the appellant was doubtful, and the evidence lacked corroboration. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Identification of Accused - Sole Eyewitness - Testimony of PW 2 Mallika was the only evidence linking appellant to the crime - Incident occurred at 2 a.m. in darkness, witness claimed to have identified appellant by moonlight and streetlight - Court found identification unreliable as witness did not know appellant prior and no test identification parade was conducted - Held that conviction cannot be based on such weak identification (Paras 8-12). B) Criminal Law - Corroboration - Medical Evidence - PW 2's testimony contradicted by medical evidence - She claimed deceased was hit with a stone, but post-mortem showed injuries from a hard and blunt object, not necessarily a stone - Also, no blood stains on stone recovered - Held that medical evidence does not corroborate ocular version (Paras 13-14). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt - Conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC set aside - Appellant acquitted (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 IPC based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sustainable when the identification of the accused is doubtful and the evidence lacks corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant to be released unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Identification of accused in darkness
- credibility of sole eyewitness
- corroboration of testimony
- benefit of doubt
