Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.2.2009 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa, acquitting the respondent/accused Pritika Borkar of offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on the date of the incident, the complainant Shubhangi Palekar was putting glass pieces on a compound wall when the accused came with a broom and cleared the glass pieces, leading to an altercation. The accused allegedly threw a stone that hit the complainant's left eye, causing injuries, and also abused her with filthy words 'Chedi, Randgye' and threatened her and her sons. A scene of offence panchanama was conducted, and charge-sheet was filed. The trial court framed charges under Sections 325, 504, and 506 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined six witnesses: PW1 Sanjay Kudav (panch), PW2 Shubhangi Palekar (complainant), PW3 Custodio Sequeira, PW4 Suraj Palekar (complainant's son), PW5 ASI Sushma Bhamera, and PW6 Dr. Audrey Quadros D'Sa (Medical Officer). The accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC denied the charges. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in disbelieving the complainant and her son. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the medical evidence (PW6) showed only a simple abrasion on the left eye, not a grievous injury caused by a stone. The panch witness (PW1) turned hostile. The complainant (PW2) and her son (PW4) were interested witnesses, and their testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistency between oral and medical evidence - The State appealed against acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 325, 504, 506 IPC. The trial court found that the medical evidence (PW6) did not support the complainant's version that a stone hit her left eye, as the injury was a simple abrasion and not grievous hurt. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse, and thus no interference was warranted (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Law - Witness Credibility - Interested Witnesses - The complainant (PW2) and her son (PW4) were interested witnesses. Their testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the panch witness (PW1) turned hostile. The High Court held that in the absence of corroboration, the trial court rightly disbelieved the prosecution case (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 325, 504, and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or unreasonable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent/accused.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal against acquittal
- inconsistency between oral and medical evidence
- credibility of interested witnesses
