Case Note & Summary
The case involves three criminal appeals filed by Ramesh Durgappa Hirekerur, Rohit Ira Mudgal, and Mahesh @ Mendis Govindappa Bovi against their conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for the murder of one person. The prosecution alleged that on the night of the incident, the three accused, along with others, assaulted the deceased with weapons, leading to his death. The trial court convicted them based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses. However, the High Court found that the eyewitness accounts were contradictory: one witness stated that all three accused assaulted the deceased, while the other claimed only two accused were involved and the third was not present. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC, as there was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds. The medical evidence did not corroborate the number of assailants. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants were entitled to acquittal. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were ordered to be set at liberty unless required in other cases.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with 34 IPC - The prosecution failed to prove common intention among the accused as the eyewitnesses gave contradictory versions regarding the role of each accused - Held that mere presence at the scene does not establish common intention (Paras 10-15). B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictory Testimony - The testimony of the two eyewitnesses was inconsistent regarding the number of assailants and the manner of assault - Held that such contradictory evidence cannot form the basis of conviction (Paras 8-12). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - When the prosecution evidence is unreliable and inconsistent, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt - Held that the appeals must be allowed and the appellants acquitted (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty unless required in other cases.
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires prior meeting of minds
- not mere presence
- conviction cannot be based on contradictory eyewitness accounts
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution evidence is inconsistent.
