Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Samadhan Ramrao Ghanghav, the brother of the deceased Santosh, filed an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order dated 12-04-2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna in Sessions Case No.88 of 2017. By the impugned judgment, respondent Nos.1 and 3 (Aruna w/o Santosh Ghanghav and Kantabai Sheshrao Kolhe) were acquitted of offences under Sections 302, 323, and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case of the prosecution was that the deceased Santosh was married to respondent No.1 Aruna, who, along with her parents (respondent Nos.2 and 3), allegedly harassed and pressurized Santosh to reside separately, get a partition of land, and sell it. On 09.03.2017, the appellant claimed to have seen respondent Nos.2 and 3 entering the village from Maroti Temple side, and on the same night, he received information that Santosh had committed suicide. The appellant suspected foul play due to marks on the neck and lodged a report. The post-mortem report opined death as 'Asphyxia due to strangulation'. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence insufficient. The appellant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence was inconclusive, and the dying declaration was unreliable. The court noted that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 372 Cr.P.C. - Right of Victim to Appeal - The informant, being the brother of the deceased, filed an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. challenging the acquittal of the accused. The court examined the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, noting that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1-2) B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 302, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC - Homicidal Death - The prosecution alleged that the deceased was strangulated by the accused. However, the medical evidence was inconclusive, and the dying declaration was not reliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3-5) C) Evidence Act - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The dying declaration was recorded by a police officer and not by a Magistrate, and there were inconsistencies. The court held that such a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. (Para 4) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was found to be plausible. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 3 for offences under Sections 302, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC is sustainable and legal.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 12-04-2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna in Sessions Case No.88 of 2017 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 372 Cr.P.C.
- presumption of innocence
- burden of proof
- benefit of doubt
- dying declaration
- medical evidence
- circumstantial evidence
