Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of ten accused persons (respondents) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No.42/1999. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 302, 307, 325, 326, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The prosecution case was based on a complaint lodged by Deorao Amruta Gaikwad (PW-1) on 20.08.1998 at Hingoli Rural Police Station. During the trial, accused No.1 (Bhaskar Tukaram Kamble) and accused No.10 (Antakalabai) died, and the trial abated against them. During the appeal, accused No.6 (Gyanoji) and accused No.8 (Vinod) also died, and the appeal abated against them. The Trial Court acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in this appeal under Section 378(2)(b) CrPC, examined the evidence and found that the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) gave contradictory statements, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution version. The court held that the Trial Court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378(2)(b) CrPC - Scope of interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the Trial Court are perverse or unreasonable. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1, 10-12) B) Indian Penal Code - Murder and Hurt - Sections 302, 307, 325, 326, 147, 148, 149 IPC - Unlawful assembly and common intention - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared common object or intention. In this case, the evidence of eyewitnesses was contradictory and unreliable, and medical evidence did not support the prosecution version. (Paras 3-9) C) Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - Unlawful assembly - The charge under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 also fails as the prosecution could not establish the ingredients of unlawful assembly. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents by the Trial Court was perverse and liable to be set aside in an appeal under Section 378(2)(b) CrPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No.42/1999 is confirmed. The appeal abates against accused No.6 Gyanoji and accused No.8 Vinod.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption of innocence
- credibility of witnesses
- medical evidence
- common intention
- unlawful assembly
