IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
B.R. GAVAI, INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
Mohd. Hanif s/o Mohd. Habib & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 139 & 189 of 2016
Decided On : 07-04-2017
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3-Evidence of solitary witness.-Evidence of solitary witness being trustworthy inspiring confidence, can be relied upon to record conviction.
No doubt that the prosecution relies on the ocular testimony of four eye- witnesses. If the testimony of these four witnesses is found to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent, it will not be at all necessary for us to go into the other circumstantial evidence. As is a settled principle of law that even if the testimony of a solitary witness is found to be trustworthy, cogent and the one which inspires the confidence in the mind of the Court, conviction on the basis of the same could be rested. It is equally settled that merely because the witnesses are interested cannot be a ground to discard their testimony.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 324-Conviction for murder.-Since evidence of witnesses involving accused is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon hence conviction of accused unjustified.
It could be that there could have been a dispute between the deceased and PW 3 on one hand and some of the accused on the other hand, as a result of which the incident might have taken place. However, it appears that for the reasons best known to the investigating agency, totally different colour appears to have been given without there being any material to support such a version. Court is at pains to say that the investigating agency has attempted to suppress the real picture coming to the Court which has resulted in culprits of the crime going unpunished.
In the result, Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
The criminal appeals are allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged with. Fine amounts if paid by appellants be refunded to them. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. The appellants by way of these two appeals have approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola dated 8.6.2016 in Sessions Trial Nos. 144/12 & 233/14, thereby convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In so far as the offences under Sections 143 & 144 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the learned trial Judge has not given separate sentence for Section 143 and the accused have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for two months. In so far as offences under Sections 147 & 148 are concerned, no separate punishment is imposed for Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer undergo R.I. for two months. In so far as the offences under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the accused have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for two months. In so far as the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the accused have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. No separate punishment is given for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons Mohd. Ansar s/o Mohd. Habib and Mohd. Irfan @ Kaloo s/o Mohd. Kasam are convicted for the offence under Section 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo further R.I. for two months.
2. The prosecution case as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus :One Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Ayub is unfortunate victim deceased in the present case. It is the prosecution case that PW.5 Mohd. Wasim Mohd. Akram had taken a loan of Rs.40,000/- from Mohd. Munaf s/o Mohd. Habib (accused no.1 in Sessions Trial No. 144/12) on interest of 15% per month. He was required to pay Rs.6000/- per month as interest and he was required to return an amount of Rs.40,000/- as principal amount. However, he was in arrears of interest for the month of May, 2012. Accused no.1 Mohd. Munaf had come to his house. He demanded interest and the principal amount from him. He said that he was not having money, thereupon he abused him and took away the laptop of Dell company and told him that unless he would give him interest, he would not give him the laptop. It is the prosecution case that thereafter he was persistently demanding money from PW.5 Mohd. Wasim. At one point of time, he had also snatched keys of his motorcycle and taken the vehicle with him. At that time, his wife was admitted in the hospital for delivery. The wife of PW.5 Wasim was discharged from the hospital and then he went back to his home. Deceased Mohd. Irshad who was his cousin had come along with his wife and children to see his wife. At that time, the accused no.1 Mohd. Munaf had come to his house with another person. He had demanded interest of two months and the principal amount. At that time, accused no.1 Mohd. Munaf had abused him loudly. After hearing the noise, Mohd. Irshad came out of the house. Mohd. Irshad enquired as to what had happened. He told him about what had happened. At that time, Mohd. Irshad persuaded accused Mohd. Munaf and told him that till 12th he will ask PW.5 Mohd. Wasim to return back the money to him.
3. On 12th July at around 7.30 p.m. Mohd. Irshad had come to the house of PW.5. His mother had collected amount of Rs.45,000/- from relativ
Abdul Nawaz vs. State of West Bengal
Dharam Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Gopal Singh and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another
Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab
Lakshmi Singh and others etc. .vs. State of Bihar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.