'Unbelievable That Eyewitness Identified Attackers Despite Power Outage' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction In 2006 Case

The deceased was the village head of Singi village and was murdered in his house due to political rivalry.

Admittedly, at the time of the incident, there was a power cut due to load shedding. But the deceased's wife, who is the sole eye witness as testimonies of three other eyewitnesses were discarded, claimed that there was sufficient moonlight to identify all the accused and the weapons that they used during the attack.

Declaring the deposition of the wife as having no credence, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar opined that the widow tried to embroider her testimony. It observed: “Picturing a scenario where twenty-two persons entered into the premises armed with axes and sticks on a dark night, even if dimly lit by moonlight, it is difficult to believe that, in the melee that ensued, any person who was under attack would be in a position to identify, clearly and with certainty, as to who was assaulting whom and with what weapon.”

As per brief facts, the deceased Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare along with his family members were attacked by the nine accused persons with axes and sticks at the residence of the deceased in Village Singi. The deceased died on the spot.

Out of the 15 witnesses of the prosecution, four were eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses included the wife of the deceased, the son of the deceased, the nephew and the nephew's wife of the deceased.

The wife had stated that the deceased, her son and her daughter-in-law along with her were present at the crime scene as they were also attacked and sustained injuries.

In 2008, the Additional Sessions Judge held nine accused persons guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 324, both read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It relied on the testimony of the four eyewitnesses.

On an appeal before the Bombay High Court, the Court acquitted six accused and sustained the conviction of three accused persons only for the offences of Section 302 read with 149 and 148 IPC. Aggrieved by this, two accused persons have challenged the conviction in a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, while the remaining accused person did not file an appeal against the confirmation of his conviction.

What did the High Court say?

The High Court acquitted six persons because there was no indication that the nephew of the deceased and the nephew's wife came to the crime spot to witness the incident. Therefore, the High Court disbelieved them as eyewitnesses.

Further, the evidence of the deceased's son was discarded because he did not state anything about the assault on the deceased.

The reliance was only placed on the testimony of the deceased's wife to sustain the conviction of the three accused. But the Court recorded that although her testimony was unreliable totally, she had embroidered her story.

What did the Supreme Court observe?

The Court stated that the guilt of the present appellants hinges solely upon the testimony of the widow. The prosecution did not examine the son's wife as the key eye witness.

Doubting the testimony of the deceased's wife, the court said: “The incident occurred between 7:30-8:00 PM on 08.04.2006 and there was a power cut at that point of time. The attack upon the deceased appears to have been in the courtyard of his house, as his dead body was also found there. However, except for the statement of Janakibai (PW-1), that there was moonlight at that time, no other evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to substantiate that fact.

Further, Janakibai (PW-1) also does not state that it was a full-moon night or, at least, nearing the full-moon night, whereby the moonlight would have been bright enough for her to see, with clarity and certainty, the events that unfolded during the attack, i.e., the weapons used in the course thereof and the persons who actually wielded those weapons.”

Apart from this, the Court questioned her testimony in many instances including that one of the accused had picked up her son's daughter and threw her in front of the house. The Court stated: “She, however, did not know whether the baby sustained any injury, which is rather unbelievable and manifests that this allegation was an afterthought, added to shock and prejudice the Court. She conveniently claimed that she had stated this fact but the same was not recorded in her complaint given at the hospital. She further stated that she could not say as to which accused had held which axe or stick in his hand. According to her, the incident went on for two hours!.”

The Court found that the narration of facts differed from what she had stated in the complaint.

The Court observed that her deposition before the Trial Court and her initial complaint “embellished her narration of how the attack occurred, resulting in a lot of inconsistencies. Further, she tried to include more witnesses and added extra details of the assault in her deposition.”

The Court concluded: “The contradictions in her story would raise reasonable doubt, as her statement in her deposition that she was attacked after the attack on the deceased was made to buttress her narration as to who attacked the deceased with axes, but in the first instance, she had stated that the accused attacked all of them as soon as they entered the house.”

Observing that this was a case where separation of truth from falsehood was impossible (as held in Narain v. State of MP (2004)), the Court held: “As already noted, the appellants have suffered 10 years' incarceration. Given the lacunae in the prosecution's case and the shaky evidence adduced in support thereof by PW-1, we necessarily have to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The appellants are, therefore, acquitted of the offences under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.”

Case Details: Saheb, s/o Maroti Bhumre etc. v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 716