The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases, particularly in establishing guilt for serious offences like murder.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

1. The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the appellant's conviction. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

FACTUAL ASPECT

2. The appellant raised a plea of juvenility. By the order dated 10th April 2023, this Court directed the Trial Court to hold an inquiry into the plea of juvenility. Accordingly, an order was made by the learned Trial Judge on 8th April 2023. The learned Trial Judge held that the appellant was not a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of the commission of the offence. After that, leave was granted, and the appeal was heard on merits.

3. The incident occurred on 6th September 2004. The accused was staying in room no. 3 rented to him by PW3 Alimuddin Amiruddin Shaikh. According to the prosecution, the deceased – Mohmed Akhtar Gafur Ansari, was also staying in the room no. 3, along with the appellant. There was a dispute between them about playing music. The dispute led to an altercation in which the appellant attacked the deceased. The injuries sustained by the deceased caused his death. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses PW3 to PW9, extrajudicial confession by the appellant made to PW19 Mohammad Afroz and dying declaration made by the deceased to PW24 Mohd. Rafiq. Though PW3 to PW9 were declared hostile, the Trial Court and High Court have relied on certain parts of their testimony. The High Court has believed the testimony of PW19 and PW24.

SUBMISSIONS

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the testimony of hostile eyewitnesses. By pointing out the findings of the High Court, he submitted that, firstly, certain statements made by the eyewitnesses out of context could not be relied upon by the prosecution. Secondly, the testimony of the said witnesses does not support the prosecution. Pointing out the evidence of PW19, he submitted that according to the witness, he was the appellant's employer. According to him, the appellant made a phone call to him at 3.30 p.m. on the date of the incident and informed him that he had murdered his roommate. He pointed out that no investigation has been made about the phone from which this call was made. Moreover, he pointed out that though PW19 claims that he informed PSI Mishra of Limbayat Police Station about the confession and called him to Central Bus Station, PSI Mishra has not been examined as a witness. He pointed out that according to the prosecution’s case, even at Central Bus Station, the appellant allegedly made the second extrajudicial confession in the presence of PSI Mishra. Therefore, the omission to examine PSI Mishra becomes fatal to the prosecution case. He pointed out that the prosecution case was that it was PSI Mishra who took the appellant into custody and produced before PW25. The version of PW25, the Investigating Officer, appears to be doubtful. He submitted that the entire prosecution case cannot be believed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that though the eyewitnesses were declared hostile, their testimony cannot be entirely discarded. She submitted that the evidence of the said witnesses brings on record the fact that at the time of the murder of the deceased, he, along with the appellant, were staying together in room no. 3 of the building owned by PW3. Learned counsel pointed out the evidence of PW4 (Salehabanu). In the cross-examination made by the learned public prosecutor, the witness stated that she first saw the appellant running towards the stairs from the lobby, and immediately after that, the deceased was found in a heavily bleeding condition. She pointed out that the witness's evidence proved that the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling. The witness heard shouts of “save, save” from the appellant's room. She also poin