The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused by the Trial Court. The case, rooted in a civil property dispute, lacked independent and credible prosecution evidence. The Court upheld the Trial Court's well-reasoned judgment, highlighting inconsistencies in witnesses' testimonies, lack of evidence recovery, and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

1. Nature of the Case

   • The appeal arises from a judgment of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate, Dahanu, acquitting two accused under Sections 324, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
   • The dispute stemmed from a civil property issue between the parties.

2. Key Observations

   • The prosecution failed to recover the weapon (stone) used in the alleged assault.
   • Prosecution witnesses were found to be interested and unreliable due to multiple contradictions in their testimonies.
   • Civil dispute context weakened the prosecution’s case.

3. Decision

   • The Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, emphasizing the lack of independent, reliable evidence and the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background and Parties (Para 1-2)

• Civil Dispute Context:
  The case arises from a property dispute. Accused No. 2’s brother sold land to the complainant without his consent, leading to an injunction against the complainant.

• Incident Details:
  On 17.05.2000, an altercation occurred when the complainant attempted to erect fencing on disputed land. Accused No. 1 allegedly bit the complainant, and Accused No. 2 allegedly hit him with a stone.

Prosecution Evidence and Witnesses (Para 2.3 - 2.5)

• Witness Testimonies:
  • PW-1: An eyewitness who turned hostile.
  • PW-2: Highlighted the pending civil litigation but provided no substantive evidence.
  • PW-3 (Complainant): His deposition revealed inconsistencies and improvements.
  • PW-4: Panch witness did not corroborate the prosecution's case.
  • PW-5: Medical examiner provided limited corroboration of injuries.
  • PW-6: Investigating Officer failed to recover the weapon.

Analysis by the Trial Court (Para 4-5)

• Credibility Issues:
  Testimonies of prosecution witnesses lacked credibility due to contradictions and frequent improvements.
• Civil Litigation Context:
  The dispute's civil nature influenced the altercation, weakening the prosecution's criminal allegations.

Judgment Analysis (Para 6-8)

• Reasoned Findings:
  The Trial Court correctly assessed the evidence, identifying gaps in prosecution’s case.
• No Independent Witnesses:
  The absence of independent witnesses and corroborative evidence undermined the case.
• Acquittal Upheld:
  High Court found no perversity in the Trial Court’s reasoning and upheld the acquittal.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Sections 324, 504, and 506 IPC
   • Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
   • Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
   • Section 506: Criminal intimidation.
2. Section 34 IPC:
   • Common intention to commit the offense.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Inconsistencies and Improvements in Testimonies:
   Repeated improvements in witness statements, especially by PW-1 and PW-3, rendered their evidence unreliable.

2. Failure to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt:
   The prosecution could not establish guilt due to lack of corroboration, recovery of the alleged weapon, and absence of independent witnesses.

3. Civil Nature of Dispute:
   The underlying property dispute influenced the allegations, diminishing the criminal case's credibility.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Evidence, Acquittal, Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Overlap.
Criminal Appeal, Acquittal, Evidence Analysis, Property Dispute, IPC Sections 324, 504, 506.