Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 22nd April 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, acquitting the respondents (Vijay Babruhan Dhankude, Sunil Babruhan Dhankude, and Anusaya Babruhan Dhankude) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the first respondent, Vijay, husband of the complainant Vanita (PW-1), was unhappy with the birth of a female child and on the night of 20-21 July 1997, he allegedly snatched the five-month-old child from Vanita, dashed her on a cot, causing her death. The child was taken to a doctor who declared her dead, but instead of taking her to a hospital, the accused buried the body. Vanita lodged a complaint the next day. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in the appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony contained material inconsistencies and improvements. The medical evidence did not support the alleged cause of death, and the child's body was not exhumed. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's view was plausible and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Standard of Proof - Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC - The High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any inconsistency or gap in evidence entitles the accused to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-12) B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Inconsistency - Section 302 IPC - The prosecution case relied on the testimony of the complainant (PW-1), which contained material inconsistencies and improvements. The medical evidence did not support the alleged cause of death, and the child's body was not exhumed. Held that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 5-11) C) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Interference - Section 378 CrPC - The appellate court should be slow in reversing an acquittal unless the trial court's view is wholly unreasonable or perverse. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not erroneous. (Paras 1, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was perverse or against the weight of evidence, warranting interference by the High Court.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 22nd April 1999 is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- standard of proof
- reasonable doubt
- circumstantial evidence
- inconsistency in prosecution case
- benefit of doubt
