Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04/02/1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1996, whereby the original accused were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the appeal, original accused No. 1 Smt. Jubedabee died, and the appeal abated against her, leaving only respondent No. 2 Noorali @ Buru to face the appeal. The prosecution case was that on the night of 18th/19th June 1996, the accused persons entered the house of the deceased and committed murder by strangulation. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court heard the appeal and perused the evidence. The court noted that the prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent and contradictory statements. Some witnesses turned hostile, and others deposed based on hearsay. The court found that the trial court's findings were not perverse and were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court held that the appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of respondent No. 2 was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Perversity - State appeal against acquittal under Sections 302, 448 read with 34 IPC - Trial court acquitted accused due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses - Held that appellate court should not interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable (Paras 1-11). B) Evidence Law - Hearsay Evidence - Admissibility - Witnesses deposed based on hearsay and not on personal knowledge - Held that such evidence cannot form basis for conviction (Paras 5-7). C) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Inconsistencies - Prosecution case based on last seen theory and motive - Witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondent No. 2 (Noorali @ Buru) confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- Appreciation of evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
- Hearsay evidence
- Inconsistencies in testimony
- Benefit of doubt
