Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Uttam Narnaware, for which the appellants, Sheikh Ahmed Munshi Sheikh (accused No.2) and Suman @ Sushila Radhelal @ Radhe Shahu (accused No.1), were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2012. The prosecution alleged that accused No.1 and the deceased had an illicit relationship while working in accused No.2's shop, and after a quarrel, the deceased left the shop. On 09.12.2011, accused No.1 called the deceased to the shop, and later the deceased was found dead. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's brother, who claimed to have seen the deceased going with accused No.1, and on the recovery of a knife and clothes at the instance of accused No.2. The trial court convicted both appellants. On appeal, the Bombay High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the sole eyewitness was an interested witness whose testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The recovery of weapons was not credible as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the last seen theory was not established. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove chain of circumstances - The appellants were convicted for murder based on last seen evidence and recovery of weapons, but the witnesses were unreliable and the recovery was not credible - Held that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused (Paras 2-15). B) Evidence Law - Witness Credibility - Interested Witnesses - Testimony of relatives and interested witnesses requires corroboration - The sole eyewitness was the brother of the deceased, and his testimony was inconsistent and not supported by independent evidence - Held that conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness (Paras 5-10). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Acquittal - High Court can re-appreciate evidence in appeal against conviction - The court re-appreciated the evidence and found the prosecution case doubtful - Held that the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 29th December, 2012 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2012 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Credibility of witnesses
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
