Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shahrukh @ Chhotu Ramlal Sonkusre, was convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Santosh Manikrao Khirekar under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 30.12.1999 at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant stabbed the deceased with a gupti (a sharp weapon) near Dr. Sakhare's hospital following a prior quarrel. The sole eyewitness, Sheikh Yunus (PW1), claimed to have seen the incident and took the deceased to the hospital. The appellant filed two appeals (Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2001) which were heard together. The High Court examined the evidence and found that PW1's testimony was unreliable due to material contradictions and omissions. The court noted that PW1 was an interested witness being a friend of the deceased and had enmity with the appellant. The recovery of the weapon was not proved, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the exact time of death. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Sole Eyewitness - Testimony of interested witness - Conviction under Section 302 IPC based solely on testimony of PW1, who was a friend of deceased and had enmity with accused - Court held that such testimony requires corroboration and careful scrutiny - In absence of corroboration and due to contradictions, conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictions and Omissions - Discrepancies in prosecution case regarding time of incident, presence of other persons, and recovery of weapon - Court held that such contradictions create reasonable doubt - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole eyewitness requires careful scrutiny
- Testimony of interested witness must be corroborated
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution case suffers from contradictions and omissions
