Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of three accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Kausalyabai. The prosecution alleged that the accused, motivated by strained relations over a Bachat Gat membership and personal issues, assaulted the deceased with sticks and a sickle, causing her death. The sole eyewitness was PW-1, the son of the deceased, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The trial court convicted all three accused based on his testimony. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence and found that PW-1's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which indicated injuries inconsistent with the weapons alleged. The court also noted that PW-1 was an interested witness and his testimony lacked corroboration from independent sources. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and thus set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on sole eyewitness - Testimony of interested witness - The court examined whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC could be sustained solely on the evidence of PW-1, the son of the deceased, who was an interested witness. The court found his testimony to be inconsistent with the medical evidence and lacking corroboration, and therefore unreliable. Held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on the testimony of a single eyewitness is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside. The appellants are acquitted and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Conviction cannot be based on sole testimony of an interested witness without corroboration
- Inconsistencies in eyewitness account and medical evidence create reasonable doubt
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
