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) for the murder of Rajkumar and causing hurt to Shobha and Manisha. The incident occurred on 23.02.2005 at about 9 PM when Rajkumar questioned accused no.1 about digging a hole at night. Accused no.1 allegedly struck Rajkumar with a crow-bar, and all accused beat him with crow-bar, stick, and stones, causing his death. Shobha (PW3) and Manisha (PW4) were the eyewitnesses. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution witnesses unreliable. The High Court examined the evidence and found that PW3 and PW4 gave contradictory versions, and their testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 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 another view is possible. (Paras 1-5)
B) Evidence Law - Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility - The testimony of interested witnesses (PW3 and PW4) was found unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies with medical evidence. The trial court's rejection of their testimony was justified. (Paras 6-10)
C) Criminal Law - Murder - Sections 302, 324, 34 IPC - Acquittal Upheld - The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence did not support the eyewitness account regarding the manner of assault. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal against acquittal
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Credibility of eyewitnesses
- Circumstantial evidence
- Section 378 Cr.P.C. scope of appeal against acquittal
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (10) 100
Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2006
Z. A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
Shri M. K. Pathan (A.P.P. for appellant), Shri R. M. Patwardhan (Advocate for respondents)
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Pulgaon
Namdeo Haribhau Dayare, Sau. Malu Dyaneshwar Uike, Girish Uttamrao Gadade, Shamrao Daduji Gondane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
State sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of respondents for murder and causing hurt
Filing Reason
State aggrieved by acquittal of respondents for offences under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 IPC
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted all accused on 05.09.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 69/2005
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse?
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trial court erred in disbelieving the eyewitnesses (PW3 and PW4) and that the acquittal was against the weight of evidence.
Respondents argued that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and that the appeal lacked merit.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, finding the eyewitnesses unreliable due to contradictions and inconsistencies with medical evidence, was not perverse. Hence, the acquittal was upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
Through this appeal, preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the State of Maharashtra impugned the judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 69/2005, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
In short, the prosecution case runs as under :- On 23.02.2005 at about 9’O Clock in the night Rajkumar came to his house for going out. His wife Manisha(PW4) and mother-Shobha (PW3) were in front of his house. Namdeo (accused no.1) was digging a hole in front of his house and Girish(accused nos.3) and Shamrao (accused no.4) were standing alongwith Namdeo(accused no.1). Rajkumar asked Namdeo(accused no.1) as to why he was digging a hole in the deep hours in the night, upon which Namdeo(accused no.1) questioned Rajkumar as to how he has the authority to ask and suddenly gave a blow of crow-bar on the head of Rajkumar.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha) acquitted the respondents on 05.09.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 69/2005. The State appealed under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on 23.10.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324, 34
