Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raj Kumar @ Suman, was convicted by the Sessions Court on 27th August 2003 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC (murder conspiracy) and Section 307 read with Section 120B IPC (attempt to murder conspiracy). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for attempt to murder. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The allegation was that on 1st October 1995, the appellant along with six others conspired to murder Jawahar Lal (PW3) and his relatives due to a dispute over a cable TV network. While the other accused entered the house and attacked the victims, the appellant was allegedly standing near the gate with a katta (countrymade handgun). The only witness who claimed to have seen the appellant was PW5 Ved Prakash. However, PW3 Jawahar Lal, the main eyewitness, stated in cross-examination that he had not seen the appellant on the day of the incident and his name was told to him by PW5. The Supreme Court found this inconsistency fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court noted that the High Court had recorded in paragraph 84 that even PW13 had seen the appellant, but this was not supported by the record. The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant's involvement beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conspiracy - Section 302 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on presence with weapon - The appellant was convicted for murder and attempt to murder based on the allegation that he stood near the gate with a katta while others committed the crime. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of PW5, who claimed to have seen the appellant, was contradicted by PW3, who stated he did not see the appellant and his name was told by PW5. The Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of his presence at the scene with a weapon, when the key eyewitness did not see him and his name was told by another witness.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of a single witness whose testimony is contradicted by other witnesses
- Presence at the scene with a weapon without any overt act is insufficient to prove conspiracy for murder
- Benefit of doubt must be given when evidence is inconsistent
