Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment dated 21-2-1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1994, whereby all 16 accused persons were acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 17-5-1993 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased Shivaji was going to his uncle's house and was followed by Malu (P.W.1). When Shivaji reached near the house of accused no.6 Jaitu, he was assaulted by accused no.6 and others, and women members of the Ghare family threw chilli powder in his eyes. Malu was also injured. He lodged a complaint, and after investigation, 16 persons belonging to the Ghare family were prosecuted. The trial court examined 9 witnesses and acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed, contending that the trial court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony of eye witnesses and that contradictions were natural. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found that the two eye witnesses, P.W.1 Malu and P.W.2 Shankar, gave contradictory versions and made improvements in their testimony. Their evidence was not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses. The inquest panchanama showing chilli powder on the deceased's body was not sufficient to prove involvement of the accused. The High Court held that the trial court's view was plausible and the acquittal could not be interfered with. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Reappreciation of Evidence - The State appealed against acquittal of 16 accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC for murder of Shivaji - The High Court reappreciated evidence and found eye witnesses unreliable due to contradictions and improvements - Held that the trial court's view was plausible and acquittal cannot be interfered with (Paras 1-5). B) Evidence Law - Ocular Testimony - Contradictions and Improvements - Eye witnesses P.W.1 Malu and P.W.2 Shankar gave contradictory versions regarding the incident and made improvements in court - Their testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses - Held that such testimony cannot form basis for conviction (Paras 4-5). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal Sustained - The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence - Held that the appeal is dismissed and acquittal confirmed (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused persons by rejecting the ocular testimony of eye witnesses and whether the appeal against acquittal should be allowed.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of all 16 accused confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- reappreciation of evidence
- ocular testimony contradictions
- benefit of doubt
- criminal appeal against acquittal
