Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed two appeals against the judgment and order of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 431 of 1989. Four accused were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted all accused of murder and criminal intimidation but convicted accused No.1 under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5000, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year. The State appealed against the acquittal (Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 1990) and sought enhancement of the sentence of accused No.1 (Criminal Appeal No. 893 of 1990). Accused No.3 died during the pendency of the appeals, and the appeal abated against him. The prosecution case arose from a property dispute stemming from an adoption. Accused No.1's second wife had no brother, and after her father's death, her mother adopted Tukaram Sitaram Kharsule. The property that might have gone to accused No.1's wife passed to Tukaram. On 22 April 1989, at about 7:30-8:00 p.m., accused No.1 hurled abuses at Sitaram Kharsule. When Sitaram confronted him, a quarrel ensued. Accused No.1 picked up a wooden stick and assaulted Sitaram outside his house, causing multiple head injuries. When Janardhan Kharsule and his wife Savitri (PW3) intervened, accused No.1 struck Janardhan on the head. Both injured were taken to the Primary Health Centre at Madh, where Sitaram was found unconscious and referred to Junnar hospital, where he was declared dead. Janardhan was treated and discharged, but his condition deteriorated the next day, and he died at Sassoon Hospital, Pune. Accused No.1 also sustained injuries in the incident. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, including medical officers and five claimede yewitnesses. One eyewitness, PW6 Ramdas Kharsule, turned hostile but admitted hearing accused No.1 abusing the deceased. The trial court assessed the evidence and held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and criminal intimidation. It found the eye witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) untrustworthy and accepted only PW7 Yeshwant Kharsule as an eyewitness but refused to base conviction solely on his testimony because he was the son of deceased Janardhan. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on accused No.1 and that the oral evidence was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which suggested some injuries were caused by a sharp object while only sticks and stones were recovered. Consequently, the trial court acquitted all accused of the major charges but convicted accused No.1 under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt. In the High Court, the State contended that the eye witness testimony was consistent and proved the involvement of accused No.1, with others sharing common intention. The defense argued that the witnesses were interested, the prosecution had not explained the accused’s injuries, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The High Court, after examining the medical evidence and the trial court's reasoning, held that the trial court had correctly discarded the evidence of the other eyewitnesses and could not base conviction on the sole testimony of an interested witness. The non-explanation of the accused’s injuries further weakened the prosecution case. The High Court noted that the trial court had surprisingly failed to frame the basic issue of homicidal death, and the post-mortem reports were not admitted, yet this did not warrant interference with the acquittal. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s observation in Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat that doctors are witnesses of truth, emphasizing that contradictions in medical evidence benefit the accused. The High Court concluded that the trial court’s view was neither perverse nor unreasonable, and therefore, the acquittal under Sections 302 and 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC was justified. The conviction under Section 325 IPC, though based on the sole testimony of an interested witness, was also not interfered with as no perversity was found in the trial court’s evaluation. The appeal for enhancement of sentence was accordingly dismissed. Both appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal and conviction were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Common Intention - Necessity of Homicidal Death Finding - Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 34 - The trial court failed to frame the primary issue whether the deaths were homicidal, and the post-mortem reports were not admitted by the defence, which the appellate court noted as a surprising lacuna but did not reverse the acquittal on that ground. (Para 3) B) Evidence - Eye Witness Testimony - Reliability of Interested Witness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The trial court discarded the evidence of four eyewitnesses as untrustworthy and held that conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of PW7, the son of a deceased, as he was an interested witness; the appellate court found this reasoning acceptable and upheld the acquittal for serious charges. (Para 4) C) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Unexplained Injuries on Accused - Indian Penal Code, Section 325 - The prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by accused No.1 during the incident, which created doubt about the prosecution's version; this non-explanation was a significant factor in discarding the murder charge and convicting only under Section 325 IPC. (Para 4) D) Medical Law - Expert Evidence - Contradiction Between Medical and Ocular Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The medical evidence indicated that some external injuries were cut injuries possible by a sharp object, whereas the recovery was only of sticks and stones, causing a contradiction that benefited the accused; the Supreme Court in Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat emphasized that doctors are witnesses of truth, reinforcing the importance of consistent medical testimony. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 302 and 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC was justified, and whether the conviction under Section 325 IPC and the sentence imposed were adequate.
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed; acquittal under Sections 302 and 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC confirmed; conviction of accused No.1 under Section 325 IPC and sentence upheld.
Law Points
- Non-explanation of injuries on accused weakens prosecution case
- conviction cannot rest on sole testimony of interested witness
- appellate court not to interfere with acquittal unless perverse
- medical evidence must be consistent with ocular evidence
- doctors as witnesses of truth
