Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of four accused persons (Namdeo Haribhau Dayare, Sau. Malu Dyaneshwar Uike, Girish Uttamrao Gadade, and Shamrao Daduji Gondane) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 69/2005 for offences under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 23.02.2005 at about 9 PM, the deceased Rajkumar questioned accused No.1 Namdeo about digging a hole at night, leading to a sudden assault with crow-bar, stick, and stones, resulting in Rajkumar's death. The informant Shobha (PW3) and Manisha (PW4) claimed to be eyewitnesses. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence. The court noted that PW3 and PW4 gave contradictory versions, did not name all accused in the FIR, and their conduct of not immediately reporting to police was unnatural. The medical evidence (PW5) did not support the number of blows or weapons alleged. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because a different view is possible. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Credibility of Eyewitnesses - Contradictions and Omissions - The testimony of PW3 and PW4, the sole eyewitnesses, was found unreliable due to material contradictions, improvements, and failure to name all accused in the FIR. Their conduct of not going to the police station immediately was unnatural. (Paras 11-20) C) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Medical Evidence - The medical evidence did not corroborate the eyewitness account regarding the number of blows and weapons used. The doctor (PW5) opined that injuries could be caused by a fall on a hard substance, not necessarily by the alleged weapons. (Paras 21-25) D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Absence of Prior Concert - The prosecution failed to prove any prior meeting of minds or common intention among the accused. The incident occurred suddenly without premeditation. (Paras 26-30) E) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Perversity - The trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. Hence, no interference warranted. (Paras 31-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondents upheld.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal against acquittal
- Credibility of eyewitnesses
- Circumstantial evidence
- Medical evidence corroboration
- Motive
- Common intention
