AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.H. Marlapalle, J.—This appeal filed u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Islampur, District - Sangli in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2005, wherein the Appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and all cri-appeal-602-07 of them have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to suffer RI for three months. As per the prosecution, accused No. 1 Arvind is the husband of the deceased - Kusum and accused No. 2 is the son of accused No. 1 and the deceased. Whereas accused No. 3 is the younger brother of accused No. 1. The accused are the residents of village Waghwadi and the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 3 are located next to each other, in the vasti away from the village and attached to their agricultural land. In addition to accused No. 2, the accused No. 1 begotten three daughters from the deceased, namely, Shubhangi, Gauri and Minakshi. Subhangi was married and staying at her matrimonial home at village Nagthane and Gauri and Minakshi were unmarried. Around 13/3/2005, there was an yearly fete at village Peth and, therefore, Shubhangi had come to her parental home at village Waghwadi and all the three sisters had attended the said fete and returned to village Waghwadi on 14/3/2005. On the same day, Shubhangi went to her matrimonial home and Gauri also accompanied her, thus, leaving behind Minakshi and accused No. 2 as the two children staying with the deceased. Accused No. 1 was in the neighbouring village - Borgaon for the last about two months. On 15/3/2005, Minakshi - PW 3, got up at about 6 a.m. and came out of the room, where her mother and she were sleeping. While she was removing the ash from the cooking place, all the accused entered the house, accused No. 1 shouted and abused at the deceased whereby she woke up. All the accused entered the room, where the deceased was sleeping and accused No. 1 sat on her chest, accused No. 2 held her hands and accused No. 3 held her legs. Accused No. 1 strangulated her despite the protest of Minakshi and she was threatened to keep quiet. Within few minutes, all the accused fled away from the rear side door and Minakshi went near her mother and tried to move her, but she was motionless and, therefore, she realized that her mother was dead. Police came at the scene at about 9.30 a.m., drew inquest panchanama (Exh. 30) and spot panchanama (Exh.29) and Minakshi''s complaint was recorded and registered as C.R. No. 50 of 2005 (Exh. 41). PW 4 - Subhash Shinde was the Police Officer, who recorded Minakshi''s complaint and got the C.R. registered at about 9.55 a.m. The accused came to be arrested around 4 p.m. on the same day from a place between Waghwadi and Islampur. The dead body of Kusum was sent for post mortem and PW 2 - Dr. Sandeep Patil conducted autopsy on 15/3/2005 between 1 to 2 p.m. and signed the post mortem report at Exh. 38. The cause of death shown in the post mortem report was "asphyxia due to throttling". On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed and the case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed. Charge was framed on 30/8/2005 (Exh. 2).
The prosecution examined in all five witnesses and its case is entirely based on the evidence of PW 3 - Minakshi, who was claimed to be 14 years of age at the time of incident and she claimed to be an eye witness to the incident. PW 1 - Sukhadev Wagh was the Police Patil of village Waghwadi and PW 5 - Sadashiv Jagtap was the PSO on duty at Islampur Police Station. He had registered C.R. No. 50 of 2005 at about 9.55 a.m. on 15/3/2005 on the basis of the complaint (Exh.41) of PW 3. The accused in their statement recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure claimed that they were innocent, came to be arrested from the place of the offence and they were framed because Anna Ramoshi with the help of PW 3 - Minakshi wanted to grab their property. As per the evidence of PW 2 - Dr. Patil, Kusum died a homicidal death and on account of asphyxia due to throttling. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4, was satisfied that the prosecution proved its case beyond doubt against the accused and they were the killers of Kusum. The trial court noticed that PW 3 - Minakshi was 14 years of age at the time of the incident and her evidence was well corroborated by the medical evidence. It further held that there was a pre-meeting of minds between the accused, they came together and murdered Kusum and fled away from the scene of offence in the wee hours of 15/3/2005.
Mr. Pradhan, the learned Counsel for the accused, submitted that PW 3 - Minakshi, a minor witness could be called "partly reliable and partly unreliable" and, therefore, if the prosecution case is based on such a solitary witness, the evidence of such a witness must be corroborated by other evidence available on record and it would be unsafe to support the order of conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of such a witness. Mr. Pradhan also pointed out various circumstances which have been contradicted between PW 1 and PW 3 or between PW 1 and PW 4 and, therefore, these contradictory depositions make the prosecution case vulnerable. As per Mr. Pradhan, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt that all the accused came together and killed Kusum in the early hours of 15/3/2005 and they were implicated at the behest of someone else or by way of a design hatched between the IO and Anna Ramoshi. Mr. Pradhan referred to the FIR (Exh.41) as well as the examination-in-chief of PW 3 so as to point out that as per the prosecution case, the motive behind the crime was the alleged illicit relationship between the deceased and Anna Ramoshi, who was the resident of neighbour-by village Peth. Mr. Pradhan referred to the final report/charge-sheet submitted by PW 4 and more particularly the last endorsement thereon, which reads as under:
It was submitted by the learned Counsel that Anna Ramoshi was not examined as a witness of the prosecution nor was he added as an accused and, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its theory of motive behind the crime and so as to implicate the accused. The learned Counsel also referred to the evidence of PW 2 - Dr. Patil and port mortem report at Exh. 38 and submitted that even as per the medical evidence, it was doubtful whether Kusum died because of throttling. Number of other circumstances were also referred to by the learned Counsel to point out holes/gaps in the prosecution case. He submitted that PW 3 claimed that the accused committed the crime and fled away, whereas PW 1 claimed that when he came to the scene of the offence, all the accused were present at about 8 a.m. The learned Counsel also submitted that PW 3 - Minakshi had a strong grudge against accused No. 2, her brother, as he was the person who had complained to his parents about her involvement with some boy from Orissa and both Minakshi as well as Gauri had eloped with these two boys from Orissa and were missing for about a week and but for the complaint of accused No. 2, they would not have returned. As per Mr. Pradhan, Anna Ramoshi was the main link behind the crime as per the case of the prosecution itself and the failure to examine him as witness of the prosecution or to implicate him as an additional accused has vitiated the prosecution case that accused killed Kusum because she was involved with the said Anna Ramoshi in sexual relationship. He also submitted that if the incident occurred at about 6 a.m. and police came to the site at about 9.30 a.m., it was unbelievable and unnatural for PW 3 to keep mum and not to inform either to her grandparents, who were staying next door or to any other person in the village that her mother was killed and she is lying dead in the house. It was, therefore, urged that for all these reasons the order of conviction and sentence is unsustainable and it deserves to be quashed by acquitting all the accused. Mr. Pradhan, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(a) Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad, .
(b) Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, .
(c) Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, .
(d) Lallu Manjhi and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand,
(e) Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, .
Mr. Shinde, the learned APP, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order of conviction and sentence and submitted that PW 3 was a natural witness and there was no material brought on record to suspect her testimony when she was deposing against her own father, brother and uncle. As per Mr. Shinde, the failure to examine Anna Ramoshi as an additional witness has not vitiated the prosecution case and it is for the prosecution to decide who should be its witnesses. In any case, Anna Ramoshi was not a material or relevant witness and he was a resident of village Peth. Mr. Shinde referred to the depositions of PW 3 - Minakshi and pointed out that the said Anna Ramoshi was a close family friend and was helping the family in the hours of need. Mr. Shinde also submitted that the deceased had no injuries on any other part of her body, except around her neck and this itself went to show that the assailants were more than one and they could be only the accused, who were seen by PW 3 cri-appeal-602-07 while committing the crime and PW 3 was not allowed to alert anyone under the threats that she would also be dealt with in the same manner, by accused No. 1. We are, therefore, required to examine whether the prosecution case could be accepted on the basis of the evidence of PW 3 - Minakshi, the sole minor eye witness.
PW 2 - Dr. Sandip Patil stated before the trial court that in the month of March, 2005 he was the Medical Officer at the Primary Health Center, Peth and village Waghwadi was under the said Primary Health Center. On 15/3/2005 the Islampur Police Station had brought the dead body of Kusum for post mortem and he conducted the same between 2 to 3.30 p.m. on the same day. He signed the post mortem report at Exh.38 and issued the provisional certificate regarding the cause of death of Kusum (Exh. 39). The doctor noticed the following external injuries on the dead body of Kusum:
1 A linear impression mark of 5 cm on anterior part of neck extending from thyroid cartilage to side of neck in upward and outward direction. Dark in colour on left side.
Subcutaneous and platysmal harmarrhage seen on right side echymosis.
3 A faint impression mark seen in upper part of neck on left side 3 cm in length.
4 2 cm. abrasion mark on right clavide one in number.
5 1 x 2 cm contusions, 4 in number seen over left claricle.
6 One nail mark on left cheek.
7 Abrasion on right pinna.
8 Nail marks on neck, 4 in number above thyroid cartilage.
He stated that injury Nos. 1 to 4 could be due to pressing of neck by fingers and injury Nos. 5 to 8 could be possible due to struggle of the victim when the victim''s neck was being pressed. The doctor stated that Kusum died due to asphyxia due to throttling.
However, in his cross-examination, the doctor admitted that (i) no oozing was found through nosetrils, mouth and ears, (ii) the tongue had not protruded out, (iii) no fracture of thyroid bone was seen. He concluded that these were possibilities in case of throttling, but they were not noticed. From the injuries, he opined that the victim might have struggled. He also admitted that the injuries on the neck could be caused by victim herself while resisting. He also stated that he had examined the wrist and ankles of the dead body and there was possibility of some kind of struggle mark if the victim was caught hold of by someone to her wrist and both ankles, but there were no injuries found on her wrists as well as ankles. He also stated that the victim was a lady wearing bangles and if her hands were caught hold of by somebody, there were chances of injury marks by breaking of bangles and the deceased was wearing bangles in her hands when he examined her. Considering injury No. 1, there was no possibility of the victim strangulating herself or that she was strangulated by any other object. He admitted that he had not mentioned the time of last meal before the death occurred.
We do not find any reason to disbelieve the findings of the trial court that Kusum died a homicidal death. However, it is necessary for us to find out whether the prosecution proved that the accused or any one of them caused the death of Kusum by throttling her or by pressing her neck in the wee hours of 15/3/2005 and more particularly on the basis of the evidence of PW 3 - Minakshi.
As per PW 3 - Minakshi, her uncle and accused No. 3 was residing adjoining her house at Waghwadi as well as her grandparents i.e. Ananda Bandal and his wife. She stated that there used to be quarrels between her mother and father on account of the visits of Anna Ramoshi to her house. Prior to two months to the date of the incident, there was a quarrel between her parents on account of Anna Ramoshi and, therefore, her father - accused No. 1 was insisting on her mother not to allow him to come to the house and after that quarrel, her father had left village Waghwadi. In her cross-examination she admitted that her father was staying at village Borgaon which was about 5 to 6 Kms. away from Waghwadi, during this entire period of two months. She also stated that her brother - accused No. 2 was a student of ITI and was also employed as a driver on the auto-rickshaw provided by Anna Ramoshi and he used to drive the said rickshaw at Islampur. On 14/3/2005 her sister - Gauri had gone with the elder sister - Shubhangi to her matrimonial home at Nagthane and herself, her mother and brother were in the house. For the last two weeks her brother - Bajirao used to go for meals to his uncle''s house and used to sleep there, thus, leaving herself and her mother in the house. Both of them went to bed at about 10 p.m. and she woke up in the morning at about 6 a.m. on the next day. Her mother was still sleeping in the bed and she came out of the room. While she was collecting ash from cri-appeal-602-07 the place of cooking, in a pot, her father, brother and uncle entered the house. The father hurled abuses to her mother due to which she woke up. Her father sat on the person of her mother and pressed her neck, her brother caught hold of the mother''s hands and uncle caught hold of her legs, she raised cries and her father threatened her that he would kill her if she would not keep quiet. After killing her mother, all the accused fled away from the rear side door. Then she went near her mother and noticed that she was motionless and the body was cold. Thereafter, police came and recorded a complaint between 8 and 9 a.m. Her complaint was recorded as per her narrations. PW 4 was the person who recorded her complaint and he also recorded the spot panchanama as well as the inquest panchanama. He had called Shubhangi and Gauri on phone and informed them about the incident. PW 3 along with the police officer went to the Islampur Police Station between 12 to 1 p.m. and she met Shubhangi and Gauri at the said place where they were present. She also stated in the cross-examination that on her complaint she put her signature in the police station, but in her examination-in-chief, she stated that she had signed on the same when it was written down at the spot of the incident. She also admitted that her brother - accused No. 2 used to take his rickshaw in the morning to Islampur and the rickshaw was provided to him by Anna Ramoshi. She cri-appeal-602-07 denied the suggestion that the quarrels between her parents were not on account of Anna Ramoshi''s visits to her house. She also stated that she had not gone to attend the nature''s call after she got up at 6 a.m. on 15/3/2005 and before the accused allegedly entered her house. She admitted that after the demise of her mother, she was not staying at Waghwadi and that Gauri came to be married but she had left her husband. She also admitted that Shubhangi, the eldest sister, also abandoned the matrimonial home and all the three sisters were not residing at Waghwadi. She was asked whether she was residing at Naghthane and she denied. She also denied the suggestion that all the three sisters were staying with Anna Ramoshi, but she admitted that when she came to the court, she was in the company of Shubhangi and both of them had reached the court in a jeep belonging to Anna Ramoshi. She also denied the suggestion that after the incident, a message was sent to her brother as well as her father as they were not at village Waghwadi and thereafter they reached the village. She was not aware whether her father was also in the police station when she was also taken to the police station on the date of the incident. She also denied the suggestion that they were in the police station when her brother reached their with his rickshaw.Thus, as per the evidence of PW 3 - Minakshi, around 6 a.m. the accused entered her house, killed her mother and fled away from the rear side door. The police reached the scene after 8 O''clock and her statement was recorded before 9 a.m. by PW 4. She was not aware whether her father was at the Islampur Police Station where she was taken by PW 4 between 12 in the noon and 1 p.m. There were quarrels between her parents on account of the visits of Anna Ramoshi to her house and her father had warned her mother to stop these visits and he had left the village two months prior to the date of the incident on account of these quarrels. Her evidence also goes to show that no one else had come to visit her house, except her grandmother, before the police arrived at the scene and she had not informed anybody that her mother was killed, till the police came at the scene.
Let us see the evidence of PW 1 - Sukhadev Wagh, who was the Police Patil of village Waghwadi. He stated before the court that at about 7.30 a.m. on 15/3/2005 he was going to his agricultural land and at that time Ananda Bandal, the father of accused Nos. 1 and 3 went to his house. Ananda was frightened and informed the witness that his daughter-in-law was murdered. He, therefore, went to the house of the accused and saw that the wife of accused No. 1 was dead. She was lying on her back and he asked all the accused to go to the police station. He also told them that he would follow them to the police station and he went there after some time. But in the meantime, while he was at the spot, the police vehicle came. The police recorded the complaint of Minakshi and obtained his signature on it. Thereafter the police drew spot panchanama and inquest panchanama.
In his cross-examination, he stated that when he went to the house of the accused, he noticed that there was a first room and then, after getting down two steps, there was another room and both the rooms were facing each other. On the southern side of the house of accused No. 1, the house of his father was located. He also admitted that he had a telephone facility in his house but he did not inform the police about the incident when he came to know about the same from Ananda or after he reached the spot. He stated that in the room in which he had seen the dead body of Kusum, there was no electric supply and after he reached the spot within about 15-20 minutes, the police had arrived. As per him, he had reached the spot around 8 a.m. and it indicated that the police party reached before 8.30 a.m.
The evidence of this witness has been contradicted by both PW 3 as well as PW 4. As per PW 1 all the accused were present at the spot when he reached there on receiving the information from Ananda, whereas PW 3 had stated before the court that accused killed her mother and fled away from the rear door. The accused in their statement recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure specifically stated that they were picked up from the spot and they were not arrested from the location claimed by PW 4. As per this witness, police reached the spot before 8.30 a.m. but the evidence of PW 4 goes to show that he received information at about 9 a.m. and he left the Islampur Police Station at about 9.25 a.m. He stated before the court that the distance between Islampur Police Station and Waghwadi was about 2 to 2 1/2 Kms. and it would take him to reach five minutes to the said village. Thus, he reached the spot only after 9.30 a.m. PW 4 had stated that the complaint of Minakshi - PW 3 at Exh.41 was recorded and she signed on it at the spot of the incident, whereas Minakshi stated before the court that when she reached the Islampur Police Station, the police obtained her signature on her complaint recorded. It is, therefore, not certain as to where and at what time PW 3 - Minakshi signed her complaint Exh. 41.
There is another facet which also requires consideration. Even if we go by the evidence of PW 3 that her father got annoyed with her mother on account of the alleged relationship she had with Anna Ramoshi, there is no evidence on record to point out that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were either party to these quarrels or had at any time shown annoyance with the alleged relationship. Accused No. 3 had ceased to be a member of the joint family with accused No. 1 about 35 years ago and had his own separate dwelling, where he was staying with his wife and other family members. Accused No. 2 was provided with rickshaw by Anna Ramoshi and he was driving the same at Islampur. At the same time, when admittedly accused No. 1 had left Waghwadi about two months back and was working at Borgaon and staying there, it was necessary for the prosecution to bring evidence on record that he had, in fact, left Borgaon and reached Waghwadi on the fateful day or in the night or any time prior to the incident. The behaviour of PW 3 - Minakshi also appears to be unnatural. When her mother was killed in front of her eyes and the killers, who were her own family members, had fled away, she had nothing to fear about and keep mum. It is unbelievable that she would keep mum for about three hours and would describe the incident only after the police i.e. PW 4 arrived at the scene. In the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (Supra), the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad (Supra) and stated that generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, namely,
(i) Wholly reliable
(ii) Wholly unreliable .
(iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
The Supreme Court further held,
... On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established:
(i) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
(ii) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(iii) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.
While dealing with the categories of oral testimony, the Supreme Court in the said case observed in para 12 as under:
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetnece or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the cri-appeal-602-07 prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.
Following the said law, the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (Supra) held that in a case where on the evaluation of the evidence, the court reaches to the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the co-accused similarly situated, though he has not challenged the order of conviction by way of an appeal. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (Supra), the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Vadivelu Thevar (Supra) and observed in para 10 as under:
The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witness to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness.
On the same lines, the Supreme Court in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala (Supra) stated,
13... Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is cri-appeal-602-07 permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires confidence. By this standard, when the prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eyewitness, it should be wholly reliable. Even though such witness is an injured witness and his presence may not be seriously doubted, when his evidence is in conflict with other evidence, the view taken by the trial court that it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony cannot be stated to be unreasonable.
On the backdrop of these enunciations, if we consider the evidence of the so called minor eye witness - Minakshi (PW 3) and in view of the analysis that we have done hereinabove of the evidence and regarding the conflicts or contradictions in the prosecution case on material aspects between the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4, we find it unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the said witness who is the sole eye witness of the prosecution.
PW 4 -Subhash Shinde stated before the trial court that on completion of the panchanamas at about 11.40 a.m., he returned to the police station along with PW 3 - Minakshi and when he reached the police station, he saw Shubhangi with her husband as well as Gauri. All of them were taken to the rural hospital at Islampur where they were shown the dead body of their mother. On completion of the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to them at about 8.30 p.m. He further stated that he searched for the accused and they were found in between Waghwadi and Peth and were apprehended at about 4.45 p.m. on the date of the incident. Their statements were recorded in the presence of four witnesses. He also stated that he recorded the statement of PW 1 - Sukhadev Wagh. We tried to find out whether the arrest panchanama was on record showing the arrest of the accused at about 4.45 p.m. and there is none on the record. Mr. Shinde, the learned APP, showed his helplessness when he was confronted with the record. In view of this, the contentions of the accused that they were picked up from the spot of the incident could not be discarded by the trial court and this also supports the evidence of PW 1 - Sukhdev Wagh that when he reached the spot of the incident at 8 a.m., they were present
PW 4, in his cross examination, stated that when he reached the spot, no person had gathered at the spot. The grand-parents of Minakshi - PW 3 were not present there. Till the police party was at the spot, none had gathered there. This evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW 1, who stated that he was present at the spot when the police party arrived and that he had also received the information about the offence from Ananda, who was staying next door to the spot of the incident. PW 4 further stated that he had arrested the accused at 4.45 p.m. on 15/3/2005, the remand application submitted before the court, which we have seen from the police file, does not give the place of arrest or from where the accused were picked up. The remand application also shows the time of arrest as 4.35 p.m. He was specifically asked as to why he did not further enquire with or record the statement of Anna Ramoshi during the course of investigation. He replied that he did not feel it necessary to enquire with the said person. This reply is not in consonance with the note the very same officer had put on the final report and which note we have quoted hereinabove. On analyzing the evidence of P.W.1-Sukhadev Babu Wagh, cri-appeal-602-07 P.W.3-Minakshi and P.W.4-Subhash Anandrao Shinde it is clear that P.W. 3-Minakshi falls in the third category of witnesses i.e. partly reliable and partly unreliable. It has also come in her cross examination and as noted by us earlier that accused No. 2-Bajirao Arvind Bandal had played a major role in ensuring that she and Gouri return to the village after they eloped with two boys from Orissa for about 8 days. She admitted that her mother had not lodged any complaint to the police in that regard. If she is the witness who falls in the third category i.e. partly reliable and partly unreliable, as per the settled legal position, it would be necessary to look for corroboration to the testimony of this sole eye witness and shockingly there is no such corroboration on the actual incident brought on record by the prosecution. We cannot rule out the possibility that P.W.3-Minakshi was not present in her house when Kusum was done to death, on account of the possibility that she would have left her house to attend the nature''s call after she got up in the early hours i.e. at about 6.00 a.m. as per the routein which she admitted in the cross examination. At the same time, in view of the time gap and the contradictions between the depositions of P.W.1-Sukhadev Babu Wagh and P.W.4-Subhash Anandrao Shinde about the presence of the accused or her absence at the spot of the incident, the chances of improving the prosecution case cannot be ruled out. It would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a sole eye witness who is reliable to the extent of the fact that she was present in the house, she got up at about 6.00 a.m. and she was the first person who saw that her mother was dead. We also feel that she was of impressionable age, at the time of the incident and was not happily placed with her bother. Though PW 3 had stated that the assailants fled from the rear side door, it has come in the evidence that the room of incident was also a kitchen and it did not have rear door. Whereas the other room had a rear door.
We must also say something about the expert''s evidence i.e. P.W.2-Dr. S. S. Patil, who had conducted postmortem. He was in the witness box on 6th February, 2007 and stated that he was about 25 years of age and was studying for his M.D., at Trivendram. It would be, therefore, inferred that P..W.2-Dr. Patil was 23 years of age when he performed the postmortem on 15th March, 2005 and obviously had just come to the medical profession on completion of his M.B.B.S. degree followed by his internship. He admitted in his cross examination that there was no patchal haemmerage of brain which generally occurs in case of throttling. He also stated that the injury marks would also indicate resistance of the victim while she was being throttled and admitted that he had examined wrists cri-appeal-602-07 and ankles of the dead body. He stated that there was a possibility of some kind of struggle marks if the victim was caught hold of by some one to her wrists and both ankles. He also admitted that no injuries were found on her wrist or ankles. He also admitted that if the victim is a lady wearing bangles and her hands are caught hold of by somebody, there are chances of injury marks by breaking of bangles. He also admitted that when he performed the postmortem, the deceased was wearing bangles in her hands. All these circumstances go counter to the alleged cause of throttling and, therefore, the testimony of this witness also raises question marks. It is well settled that the opinion of an expert is not binding on the Court in every case and if the testimony of an expert witness raises questions, that itself would render the prosecution case doubtful and would be sufficient to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
Having considered the evidence of all the material witnesses, in our opinion, the trial Court was in serious error in testing the evidence of P.W.3-Minakshi and accepting her as a reliable eye witness to the incident. We have also set out the circumstances to make her a doubtful witness raising question marks on the prosecution case. It is well settled that benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused and in the instant cri-appeal-602-07 case the doubts over the prosecution case are writ large and, therefore, it would have to be held that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubts regarding the complicity of the accused. The sole basis of the motive behind the crime namely the illicit relationship between the deceased and Anna Ramoshi could not be established by the prosecution and PW 4 made the prosecution case vulnerable. For all the above reasons, the order of conviction and sentence impugned is unsustainable and requires to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. All the Appellants are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The Appellants-accused are in jail and they be released forthwith, unless required in some other criminal case.