Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase allowed a criminal appeal filed by an accused convicted under Section 302 IPC, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, absence of credible motive, and procedural lapses during investigation.
“When evidence suffers from material discrepancies and contradictions, conviction cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or emotional reasoning.”
The Bench reiterated that the golden thread of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, and when the prosecution’s story is doubtful, benefit must go to the accused.
Facts
The case arose from an alleged incident where the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood near his house. The prosecution alleged that the accused, who was a neighbour, had assaulted the deceased with a sharp weapon following a heated argument over a property boundary dispute.
An FIR was lodged by the deceased’s son, who claimed to have witnessed the assault. The investigation led to the recovery of a bloodstained weapon and clothes, purportedly at the instance of the accused.
The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC (murder), sentencing him to life imprisonment. The accused challenged the conviction before the High Court, asserting that the evidence was fabricated, the eyewitnesses were unreliable, and the alleged recovery was planted.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased.
- Whether the eyewitness testimonies were credible and free from contradictions.
- Whether the recovery and forensic evidence could be relied upon in absence of corroboration.
Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the eyewitness accounts were riddled with contradictions, with key witnesses changing their version at every stage. The alleged “eye witness” was not present at the scene but arrived later, as evident from cross-examination.
It was further argued that there was no motive, since the alleged quarrel over land boundaries had been amicably resolved long before the incident. The counsel stressed that no independent witnesses from the neighbourhood were examined, despite the alleged crime occurring in a populated locality.
The appellant also challenged the recovery of the weapon, contending that the panch witnesses were interested and unreliable, and that no blood group matching was conducted by the forensic laboratory.
Relying on the principle laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, counsel argued that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, which was missing in this case.
Respondent’s (State’s) Arguments
The Additional Public Prosecutor defended the conviction, asserting that the eyewitness testimony of the informant was cogent and supported by medical and circumstantial evidence. The recovery of the bloodstained weapon was at the instance of the accused, duly recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
It was argued that minor contradictions are natural and cannot discredit the overall reliability of witnesses. The prosecution maintained that the postmortem report conclusively established homicidal death due to multiple incised wounds caused by a sharp weapon, consistent with the prosecution version.
The State contended that the trial court rightly drew inference of guilt and that the appellate court should not interfere with concurrent findings unless perversity is demonstrated.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench examined the principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases resting on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.
Referring to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court emphasized that evidence must inspire confidence, and discrepancies going to the root of the matter cannot be ignored under the pretext of being minor.
The Court underscored that motive, presence, and recovery must be proved through unimpeachable evidence, as per the law laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (1952 SCR 1091).
The Court observed that inconsistencies in the prosecution story, coupled with lack of corroboration, rendered the entire case doubtful. The Bench reiterated that benefit of doubt must be extended when two views are possible — one indicating guilt and the other innocence.
Precedent Analysis
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 — Laid down the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence. The Court applied these principles, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events.
- State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 — Held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. The Bench cited this to reinforce that the evidence in the present case was insufficient for conviction.
- Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (1952 SCR 1091) — Reaffirmed that conviction based solely on inconsistent eyewitnesses cannot stand.
- Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (2015) 4 SCC 739 — The Court relied on this precedent to highlight that recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act require unimpeachable proof of voluntariness.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court meticulously examined the testimonies of key witnesses and found substantial contradictions regarding the time of the incident, weapon used, and presence of the accused. The informant first stated he saw the assault, later admitted he arrived after the incident.
No independent witnesses were examined, despite the alleged assault occurring in public view. The medical report, though confirming homicidal death, did not conclusively link the injuries to the weapon allegedly recovered.
Further, the panch witnesses to recovery were close acquaintances of the informant, raising doubts about impartiality.
The Court held:
“It is not the quantity of witnesses but the quality of evidence that sustains conviction. When witnesses vacillate between versions, it shakes the foundation of the prosecution case.”
The Court also noted that the trial court erred by relying on conjecture rather than proven facts and by overlooking glaring procedural lapses in seizure and forensic examination.
Conclusion
Setting aside the conviction, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was therefore acquitted of all charges.
“In criminal law, suspicion cannot substitute for proof. The accused is entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish guilt conclusively.”
The Bench directed the immediate release of the appellant, unless required in any other case, and ordered that any fine paid be refunded.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that credibility of evidence prevails over quantity of witnesses. It highlights that:
- Inconsistent testimonies and doubtful recoveries vitiate the prosecution case.
- Trial courts must carefully evaluate evidence, especially when the case rests on eyewitness accounts.
- The ruling strengthens jurisprudence on benefit of doubt, emphasizing that liberty cannot be compromised on speculative evidence.
This decision will likely serve as persuasive authority in appeals involving weak eyewitness testimony and procedural lapses.