Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 35/2015 dated 05.03.2018, which acquitted all eight respondents of charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 read with 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 12.08.2014, an altercation occurred at Jairaj Wine Bar over a bill of Rs. 3870/- between the informant Sachin Nandane (PW4) and the deceased Sunil Dhopekar on one side and accused Satish Khandare and Sagar Uparwat on the other. Later that night, around 9:00 p.m., the accused persons allegedly returned and attacked the deceased with weapons, causing his death. The sole eyewitness was PW4, who claimed to have identified the accused with the help of a torchlight. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence of PW4 unreliable and the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's appreciation was plausible and not perverse. The identification of the accused in darkness was doubtful, and there were contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Identification of Accused - Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution case rested on the sole testimony of PW4 who claimed to identify the accused in darkness with the help of a torchlight. The High Court held that in the absence of corroboration and given the improbabilities in the evidence, the identification was unreliable and the trial court's acquittal was not perverse. (Paras 1-20)
B) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and did not warrant reversal. (Paras 1-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court was perverse and liable to be set aside, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of all respondents.
Law Points
- Identification of accused in darkness
- credibility of sole eyewitness
- appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal against acquittal
- standard of proof for conviction
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 111
Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2020
Z. A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for appellant/State; Shri K. H. Anandani for respondent no. 1; Shri Ayush Sharma for respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7; Shri Amol Jaltare for respondent no. 6; Ms. Falgoni Badami h/f Shri S. V. Sirpurkar for respondent no. 8
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Akola Old City Police Station, District Akola
Vivek Prakash Ingle, Satish Gulabrao Khandare, Sagar Ramrao Uparwat, Nitesh Gulabrao Khandare, Kunal Shivcharan Tayade, Akshay Mohan Ghuge, Shubham Sheshrao Khandare, Gajanan Kashinath Kamble
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought setting aside of the trial court's acquittal and conviction of the respondents.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 read with 149 and 302 IPC.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 35/2015 dated 05.03.2018 acquitted all respondents.
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant-State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite credible evidence of PW4.
The respondents argued that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The identification of the accused in darkness based on torchlight was unreliable, and the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible.
Judgment Excerpts
Through this appeal the appellant-State of Maharashtra challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 35/2015 dated 05.03.2018 thereby acquitting all respondents of the charge of commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Akola) acquitted the respondents in Sessions Trial No. 35/2015 on 05.03.2018. The State appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which dismissed the appeal on 16.02.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307
