Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kalyan, acquitting the respondents-accused (Baban Gangaram Chirate and others) for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was that on 03/09/1992 at 7:30 a.m., the complainant Yeshwant Nanu Chirate (injured eyewitness and son of deceased Nanu) lodged a complaint alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 7 formed an unlawful assembly, committed riot, and murdered his father Nanu by sword. Subsequently, accused Nos. 1 to 4 assaulted the complainant with swords in his field, causing injuries. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The trial court examined 11 prosecution witnesses and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquitting all accused. The State appealed. The High Court heard the learned APP for the State and the appointed advocate for respondents. The court noted that the appeal was against acquittal and the burden on the State was heavy. The court examined the evidence of the injured eyewitness (PW2) and found material contradictions and improvements in his testimony. The witness had not named all accused in the FIR and his version was inconsistent with medical evidence. There was no independent corroboration from other witnesses. The court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not perverse and the acquittal was justified. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the respondents.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Appreciation of Evidence - Injured Eyewitness - The State appealed against acquittal of accused for murder and attempt to murder. The High Court held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness (PW2) was unreliable due to material contradictions and improvements, and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The acquittal was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC - The court examined whether the accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder. The evidence of the sole eyewitness was found to be inconsistent and not credible, and there was no independent corroboration. Hence, the charge under Section 149 IPC was not established. (Paras 3-6) C) Criminal Law - Arms Act - Section 27(3) - The prosecution alleged use of swords by accused. However, due to lack of reliable evidence regarding possession and use of weapons, the charge under the Arms Act was not proved. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents-accused by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal of the respondents-accused.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- standard of proof in criminal appeal against acquittal
- appreciation of evidence of injured eyewitness
- corroboration of testimony
- common object of unlawful assembly
- conviction under Section 302 IPC with Section 149 IPC
