The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction and life sentences imposed on the appellants for murder under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.
The appeals were filed by appellants Dinesh Kumar and Shivnath Mhaji challenging their conviction and life imprisonment sentence for murder. The prosecution had claimed both accused jointly caused the death by assault using a wooden stick. The appellants sought to overturn the conviction citing lack of reliable evidence and discrepancies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
The case involves the murder of Lalu Singh, who, along with the accused, were employees residing in the same hut. On 2 April 2021, a quarrel led to both accused allegedly assaulting Lalu Singh with a heavy wooden stick, resulting in his death. A key witness claimed that accused No.1 confessed to the murder, and police recovered the murder weapon and blood-stained clothes from the accused.
The trial court on 5 April 2024 convicted both accused under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34, sentencing them to life imprisonment. This judgement was challenged before the High Court.
The defence challenged the reliability of key witnesses, especially PW4 whose statement was found to be influenced by employer pressure and improbable in facts. They claimed that contradictions among witness testimonies (PW4, PW6, PW7) undermined the prosecution’s case. The appeal also highlighted timing inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances surrounding arrests and evidence recovery.
The Bench comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ashish S. Chavan scrutinised the prosecution case and ultimately found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act for adverse inference was erroneous.
The Court disbelieved the star witness PW4 due to admitted coercion and contradictions in his and other witnesses’ evidence. The recovery of the weapon and blood evidence was held to be doubtful due to gaps in chain of custody and improbabilities. Overall, the Court observed that the totality of circumstances raised reasonable doubt, mandating acquittal.
In result, the appeals were allowed, the conviction under IPC 302 read with Section 34 was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The appellants were ordered to be released upon executing PR bond under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Appearances:
For the Appellant 1: Mr. Sahil Sardesai, Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme with Ms. Bhaghyawati Guddamavar, Advocate.
For the Appellant 2: Mr. Sagar Shargalkar, Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme
For the Respondent: Mr. SG Bhobe, Public Prosecutor
