Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the homicidal death of Shrirang on 4 January 1997. The State of Maharashtra and Bahinabai, the mother of the deceased, challenged the acquittal of Sanjay Eknath Ingle and Raju @ Rajesh Eknath Ingle by the Sessions Judge, Buldana, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on the night of the incident, while the deceased’s wife was away, his mother Bahinabai (P.W.2) had cooked food and left the house around 8.30 p.m. According to the two child witnesses, Gopal (P.W.6) and Shrikrishna (P.W.8), sons of the deceased, the accused entered their house shortly thereafter and demanded liquor. When Shrirang began filling liquor, accused Sanjay kicked him, causing him to fall, and then slashed his neck with a razor. After the first blow, accused Raju instigated Sanjay to finish Shrirang, leading to a second razor blow to the abdomen. The boys raised shouts but received no help. Bahinabai was later informed and found Shrirang dead with bleeding injuries. Police Patil Devalsingh (P.W.1) lodged the FIR, leading to registration of Crime No. 3/1997. Investigation yielded recovery of a razor and blood-stained clothes at the instance of accused Sanjay, but blood group on the razor could not be determined. Medical evidence confirmed neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. The Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case, finding contradictions in the child witnesses’ testimonies and lack of independent corroboration, and acquitted the accused. The State’s appeal contended that the trial court gave undue weight to minor discrepancies and ignored the reliability of the child witnesses, the non-availability of independent witnesses due to the deceased’s illicit liquor trade, and the recovery of weapon. The Court noted the following admitted facts: homicidal death, sharp-edged injuries, inconclusive blood group on the weapon, absence of independent eyewitnesses despite nearby huts, and that P.W.6 and P.W.8 were the sole alleged eyewitnesses. The High Court, while examining the grounds, observed that the evidence of the child witnesses contained material contradictions on the manner of assault and sequence of events. The testimony of the first informant Devalsingh (P.W.1) was not fully supportive. The prosecution failed to examine any independent witness from the vicinity, which the Court considered a serious lacuna. The recovery of the razor and clothes, though at the instance of accused Sanjay, could not be linked conclusively given the inconclusive serological report. The trial court’s view that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt was found to be plausible. Consequently, the High Court held that no perversity could be attached to the acquittal and dismissed the appeal and revision, upholding the benefit of doubt extended to the accused.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Law Points
- in appeal against acquittal
- court should not interfere unless perverse
- child witness testimony requires careful scrutiny
- material contradictions in evidence of eyewitnesses fatal to prosecution
- failure to examine independent witnesses weakens case
- recovery of weapon not sufficient for conviction without corroboration
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
