Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed the life sentence awarded by Sessions Court to one of the two murder convicts in a 2011 case.
The Additional Sessions Court in March 2019 had convicted and sentenced Taru Chavan to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his brother Thawru on November 18, 2011. As per the prosecution, Taru along with his brother Hiru visited their victim brother Thawru demanding money and when Thawru refused to heed to their demand, the duo allegedly assaulted Thawru with sandal and stabbed him with a knife killing him. The wife of the deceased Sushila was examined as an eye-witness.
Taru’s lawyer Adv Arun Bras de Sa pointed out to Sushila’s statement that while Hiru and Thawru were into a heated discussion, Taru was in the veranda of the house. She further stated that conversation between Taru and Thawru were normal, and when her husband was stabbed she was near her husband while Taru was in the veranda. “She has also stated that when Hiru stabbed her husband, Taru was in the veranda and did not do anything. Only after shouting consequent to the stabbing of her husband Taru came inside to stop the fight,” de Sa said in a petition challenging the conviction.
He further submitted to the bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Nutan Sardessai that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC before the Magistrate, Sushila stated that Taru was involved in at least holding her husband while Hiru stabbed Thawru.
The Division Bench, based on the submissions from the prosecution and defence observed that the cross examination of the eye-witness is sufficient to upset the conviction recorded against Taru.
“The Sessions Judge has therefore preferred to rely upon the statement of Sushila recorded under Section 164 CrPC, in preference to the substantive evidence rendered by her in the course of the trial. According to us, this is not proper. If at all, there are inconsistencies between the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the substantive evidence tendered in the course of the trial, it is the substantive evidence, which deserves to be taken into consideration,” the court stated.
“Sushila stood by her statement and clearly stated that Taru was not involved in the incident of stabbing and in fact he came into the room after he heard the shouting and even tried to stop the fight… In this state of evidence, we cannot sustain the conviction against Taru. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction recorded against him and the sentence imposed upon him is hereby quashed and set aside,” the bench ordered.
