Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Namdev Mahadev Dhumal, Anil Namdev Dhumal, and Sunil Namdev Dhumal, were convicted by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Palghar, District Thane in Sessions Case No.12 of 2006 for the murder of Bhavin Jayesh Parekh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for causing hurt under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The incident occurred on 9th October 2005 at about 6 p.m. when the deceased, a builder, was in his office at Virar (East). The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased with weapons due to a dispute over a drainage pipeline repair contribution. The sole eyewitness, Hardik Rathod (PW1), claimed to have seen the attack. The trial court convicted the appellants based on his testimony. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that PW1 was an interested witness being a close friend of the deceased and having enmity with the appellants. His testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses or medical evidence. The recovery of weapons was also not proved beyond doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - Testimony of interested witness requires corroboration - The sole eyewitness was a close friend of the deceased and had enmity with the accused - His testimony was found to be unreliable and not corroborated by other evidence - Held that conviction cannot be based solely on such testimony (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Circumstances - The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused - The recovery of weapons was not proved beyond doubt - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused (Paras 16-20).
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 testimony of interested witnesses and lack of corroborative evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Interested witness
- Corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Benefit of doubt
