Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Nikhil More on the night of 17.08.2017 at Nashik. The prosecution alleged that the appellants (original accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6) formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased and others with weapons, resulting in the death of Nikhil More and injuries to others. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms. The appellants challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW4 (Suraj Khode) and PW5 (Amol Nikam), who were the only eyewitnesses. The court noted that both witnesses were friends of the deceased and admitted to being part of the same group, making them interested witnesses. Their testimony contained material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies, and there was no independent corroboration from other witnesses or medical evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction was unsustainable. The court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. The court also disposed of the interim applications.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witnesses - Testimony of interested witnesses must be subjected to strict scrutiny and cannot form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration - The court held that the prosecution case rested solely on the testimony of PW4 and PW5, who were friends of the deceased and had admitted to being members of the same group as the deceased, making them interested witnesses - Their testimony suffered from material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies, and there was no independent corroboration - Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted (Paras 1-32).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of interested witnesses and the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the trial court is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Interim applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Testimony of interested witnesses requires careful scrutiny
- conviction cannot be based solely on interested testimony without corroboration
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution case suffers from inconsistencies and improvements
Case Details
APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1733 OF 2022, APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 718 OF 2021, APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 741 OF 2021, APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 735 OF 2021, APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2024
Manish Pitale, Manjusha Deshpande
Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala, Ms. Anima Mishra, Mr. Vinod Patil, Mr. Anuj Singh, Mr. Anshu Agrawal, Mr. Ankit Rathod, Mr. Vivek M. Punjabi, Ms. Shweta Bhagchandani, Mr. Priyansh R. Jain, Ms. Parichhar Zaiwala, Mr. Aniket Kadam, Ms. Abhilasha Pawar, Mr. Amit Icham, Mr. Ateet Shirodkar, Mr. Bhavin Jain, Mr. Kunjan Makwana, Ms. Sangita Phad
Roshan Jaywant Pagare, John @ Sunil Hari Kajale, Arif Shahjad Qureshi, Sharad Deepak Pagare, Amar Ranjit Gangurde
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for murder and other offences.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of conviction and acquittal.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by trial court under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants on 10.11.2020; acquitted original accused Nos.2, 7 and 8.
Issues
Whether the conviction is sustainable based on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration.
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the prosecution case rested solely on interested witnesses PW4 and PW5, whose testimony was unreliable, contradictory, and improved.
Respondent argued that the testimony of PW4 and PW5 was credible and sufficient to sustain conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of interested witnesses must be subjected to strict scrutiny and cannot form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any independent corroboration, and the evidence of PW4 and PW5 suffered from material contradictions and improvements, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By these appeals, the appellants (original accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6) have challenged judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.6), Nashik, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 324, 143, 147, 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the night of 17.08.2017 at about 10:00 p.m., when Suraj Khode (P.W.4) went for a walk and reached in the front of Happy Games Zone, Kala Nagar, Nashik, he met Amol Nikam (P.W.5) and Nikhil More i.e. the deceased.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellants on 10.11.2020. The appellants filed appeals before the Bombay High Court, which were heard and decided on 01.12.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148
