Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 25th April 1991 at about 7:00 p.m. in village Jalgaon-Supe, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, where a group of 30-40 persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like sticks and axes, and assaulted the deceased, Namdeo Yede, and others. The deceased succumbed to injuries. The appellants, 11 in number, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of PW-1, the son of the deceased, who claimed to have witnessed the incident and identified all the accused. However, no independent witnesses were examined, and the investigating officer (PW-8) admitted that many villagers were present but not cited as witnesses. The High Court found that the identification of the accused by PW-1 was unreliable given the large mob, the time of day, and the witness's own contradictions. The court noted that PW-1's testimony was not corroborated by any other evidence, and the medical evidence did not link specific injuries to specific accused. The court also observed that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted all the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rioting and Murder - Identification of Accused - Sections 147, 148, 302/149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based solely on testimony of sole interested witness (PW-1) who claimed to identify all 11 accused in a mob of 30-40 persons - Court held that such identification is unreliable, especially when no independent witnesses were examined and the incident occurred in a village where many were present - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - Testimony of a close relative of the deceased, though not necessarily unreliable, requires cautious scrutiny and corroboration - In the absence of any corroboration and with contradictions in the witness's own testimony, conviction cannot be sustained - Held that the trial court erred in relying solely on PW-1's evidence (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable based on the evidence of a single interested witness and in the absence of independent witnesses.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10th December 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1992 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Identification of accused in a mob
- reliability of sole interested witness
- necessity of independent corroboration
- appreciation of evidence in rioting cases
