Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to two criminal appeals filed by Rahul Devidas Mahapure (accused No.1) and Vitthal Ramkisan Dhanwate (accused No.2) against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Buldana, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Vinod Sadashiv Mahapure. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had received Rs.8 lakh from accused No.1 for selling property but failed to execute the conveyance, leading accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 to murder the deceased by hanging on 31.03.2016 at the Cotton Market, Amdapur. The case was based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, Gajanan Mahapure and Pramod Mahapure, who were relatives of the deceased. The trial court convicted both accused. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the eyewitnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony contained material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies. The medical evidence did not support the theory of hanging, and the circumstances were not conclusive. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony - Interested witnesses - The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who were relatives of the deceased. The court held that their testimony suffered from material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies, and there was no independent corroboration. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of evidence - Interested witnesses - The court reiterated that the testimony of interested witnesses is not per se unreliable but must be scrutinized with care. In this case, the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and their evidence was found to be inconsistent with the medical evidence and other circumstances, leading to its rejection. (Paras 15-18) C) Criminal Law - Circumstantial evidence - Hanging - The prosecution's case that the deceased was murdered by hanging was not supported by the medical evidence, which indicated that the ligature mark was not consistent with hanging. The court held that the circumstances did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Case No.83 of 2016 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole testimony of interested witnesses requires corroboration
- Material contradictions and improvements in eyewitness testimony render it unreliable
- Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
