Case Note & Summary
The complainant, Baki Abdulgani Patel, filed a criminal revision against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur, in R.C.C. No.153 of 2000 dated 06.07.2005. The complainant had lodged an FIR on 07.08.2000 at Police Station Naldurg, District Osmanabad, alleging offences under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused (respondents 2 to 5). After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the accused faced trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the injured complainant and other witnesses, and medical evidence was adduced. The Magistrate acquitted the accused, primarily on the grounds that the investigating officer was not examined, the alleged weapons were not seized, and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was not complied with. The complainant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for discarding the testimony of the injured witnesses, which was supported by medical evidence. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, found that the Magistrate's judgment was perverse and without reasons. The court noted that the Magistrate had not considered the direct evidence of the injured witnesses and had instead focused on procedural lapses that did not vitiate the prosecution case. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh decision, directing that the evidence be re-appreciated and a reasoned judgment be passed within six months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision against acquittal - Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - Perverse judgment - The complainant challenged the acquittal of accused under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The High Court held that the Magistrate's judgment was perverse as it discarded the testimony of injured witnesses without assigning any reasons, despite the evidence being corroborated by medical evidence. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter for fresh decision. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Evidence Act - Non-examination of investigating officer - Section 27 Indian Evidence Act - Effect on prosecution case - The Magistrate acquitted the accused on grounds that the investigating officer was not examined and weapons were not seized. The High Court held that non-examination of investigating officer or non-compliance of Section 27 does not ipso facto vitiate the prosecution case if direct evidence of injured witnesses is credible. (Paras 4-10) C) Indian Penal Code - Assault and hurt - Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC - Appreciation of evidence - The High Court observed that the Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence of injured witnesses and the medical evidence, which clearly supported the prosecution case. The judgment was found to be without reasons and hence perverse. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate is perverse and liable to be set aside for non-consideration of evidence of injured witnesses and medical evidence
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, and remanded the matter to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur for fresh decision in accordance with law, directing that the evidence be re-appreciated and a reasoned judgment be passed within six months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Acquittal can be set aside if judgment is perverse
- reasons are not assigned
- injured witness testimony is discarded without reasons
- direct evidence corroborated by medical evidence cannot be ignored
