Case Note & Summary
The accused Anil Bansi Alhat was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 254 of 2010 for offences under Section 302 (murder) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that on 23 April 2009, the accused attacked his wife Meena with a sickle after a dispute over her failure to vote in the Loksabha elections. Eyewitnesses Jayshree (PW1) and Ranjanabai (PW4), sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, deposed about the assault. The sickle became embedded in the deceased's head, and she died while being referred to a higher hospital. The accused pleaded not guilty. In appeal, the appellant argued that the eyewitnesses were interested and their testimony contained contradictions, the weapon seizure was doubtful, and he was falsely implicated. The State supported the conviction. The High Court examined the medical evidence of PW7 Dr. Khamkar, who confirmed the embedded weapon and a simple injury on Jayshree. The excerpt of the judgment does not contain the final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evidence of eyewitnesses PW1 and PW4 was reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction; whether contradictions in testimony were material; whether weapon seizure was properly established; whether the appellant was falsely implicated
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 27
Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 2013
S.S. Shinde and V.K. Jadhav
M.B. Kolpe (for Appellant), K.S. Hoke Patil (A.P.P. for Respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing hurt
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the trial court's judgment and order of conviction
Filing Reason
Appellant contended that the evidence of eyewitnesses was unreliable, contradictory, and that the witnesses were interested; also alleged false implication
Previous Decisions
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 254 of 2010 convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and fine for murder, and six months rigorous imprisonment for causing hurt
Issues
Whether the evidence of eyewitnesses PW1 and PW4 was reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction
Whether contradictions in their testimony were material
Whether the seizure of the weapon was properly established
Whether the appellant was falsely implicated
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of PW1 Jayshree and PW4 Ranjanabai was inconsistent and unreliable, with contradictions regarding the incident and residence of the deceased, and description of the weapon in the FIR and evidence being contrary. He also submitted that their presence at the spot was doubtful, seizure of weapon was not proven, and they were interested witnesses. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. vs. Arun Kumar Gupta.
The learned A.P.P. argued that both witnesses saw the actual assault, the weapon remained embedded in the deceased's head when removed by a doctor, and there was motive as the accused suspected his wife's chastity. The trial court's findings were in consonance with the evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The blow was so forceful that the sickle/sattur remained embedded in the head of Meena.
One instrument like Sattur/Koyta was found in her skull.
The accused has been falsely implicated in the crime.
Both the witnesses PW1 and PW4 are interested witnesses and their oral testimony cannot be relied upon.
The nature of injury was simple and the same might have been caused due to sharp edged object.
Procedural History
First Information Report lodged on 23.04.2009; Crime No.157/2009 registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504 IPC; chargesheet filed; case committed to Sessions; Sessions Case No.254/2010 tried; appeal filed as Criminal Appeal No.354/2013
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324, 307, 323, 504
- Arms Act, 1959: 4, 25
