Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Vikram Purshottam Chauhan and Suryabhan Vikram Chauhan, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, for the murder of Suresh Chauhan under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for causing hurt to Rajendra Chauhan under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. The prosecution case was that on 4th February 2007, there was a quarrel between the appellants and the deceased over a petty issue, during which the appellants allegedly assaulted the deceased with a stump and a knife, causing his death. The sole eye-witness was PW1, Rajendra Chauhan, the brother of the deceased, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The trial court relied on his testimony and convicted the appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The court found that PW1 was an interested witness being the brother of the deceased, and his testimony contained material improvements and contradictions. For instance, in his police statement, he mentioned only one blow, but in court he claimed multiple blows. The medical evidence showed only one injury on the deceased, which was inconsistent with the claim of multiple blows. The court also noted that the other prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case. The recovery of weapons was not linked to the appellants convincingly. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was based on unreliable testimony of an interested witness without corroboration. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witness - Corroboration required - The prosecution relied solely on the testimony of PW1, the brother of the deceased, who was an interested witness. The court held that while the testimony of an interested witness is not necessarily unreliable, it must be scrutinized with care and corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the witness made material improvements and contradictions, and his testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence or other independent witnesses. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Inconsistency with ocular evidence - Benefit of doubt - The medical evidence showed that the deceased had only one injury, whereas the eye-witness claimed that the appellants inflicted multiple blows. The court held that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution version, and this inconsistency entitled the appellants to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - Improvements and contradictions - The court noted that PW1 made significant improvements in his testimony before the court compared to his earlier statement to the police, and there were contradictions regarding the number of blows and the weapons used. Such testimony was held to be unreliable. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of interested witnesses and the medical evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witness requires corroboration
- Improvements and contradictions in witness testimony render it unreliable
- Medical evidence must corroborate ocular evidence
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
