Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal appeal filed by the appellants (accused No.1 and 2) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2013 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in SC No.50/2012, convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000 each. The appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The prosecution case was that on the night of 22.04.2011, the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, murdered the deceased by assaulting him with a knife and a club. The motive alleged was a previous enmity regarding a land dispute. The trial court relied primarily on the testimony of PW-1, the brother of the deceased, who claimed to be an eyewitness. The High Court examined the evidence and found that PW-1's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The medical evidence did not corroborate the manner of assault as described by PW-1. Other prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support the case. The recovery of weapons was not properly linked to the accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Sole Eyewitness - Testimony of interested witness requires corroboration - The conviction was based solely on the testimony of PW-1, the brother of the deceased, who was an interested witness. The court found his testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration from medical evidence or other witnesses. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 10-20). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Incomplete Chain - The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence which did not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. The recovery of weapons was not linked to the accused, and the motive was not established. Held that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 21-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of a sole interested witness and lack of corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2013 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in SC No.50/2012 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
- Testimony of interested witness
- Corroboration of evidence
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
