Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against acquittal filed by the State of Maharashtra and a criminal revision application by the original complainant arising from the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag, which acquitted all six accused of charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 3 July 1992 when two sons of complainant Bhiku Sakharam Kharate were allegedly assaulted near Vasant Bhojanalaya, Neral. One son, Shekhar, died from injuries, and the other, Nitin, was injured. The prosecution claimed that the accused, armed with swords, attacked the victims due to a prior dispute over accounts of a festival committee. During the trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, but many, including independent eyewitnesses and the hotel owner, turned hostile. The injured witness Nitin (PW3) gave a narrative that contradicted itself on the timing of the assault and the presence of weapons inside the hotel. Medical evidence from two doctors established that the sword produced (article 15) could not have caused the injuries sustained by the victims. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. On appeal, the State argued that the trial court should have believed the injured eyewitness. The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, found that the injured witness's testimony was inherently inconsistent and lacked corroboration from independent sources. The medical evidence further negated the involvement of the sword produced. Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court's view was reasonable and did not warrant interference. Both the appeal and the revision were dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld. The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled.
Headnote
A) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Injured Eyewitness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/149, 307/149 - The testimony of an injured witness, though ordinarily entitled to great weight, must be consistent and corroborated where possible. The injured witness (PW3) contradicted himself on the timing of the assault and the presence of weapons. Independent witnesses, including the hotel owner, turned hostile. Held that his evidence was intrinsically unreliable and insufficient to base a conviction (Paras 9-11). B) Criminal Trial - Medical Evidence - Weapon Injury Discrepancy - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The medical officer categorically stated that the injuries could not have been caused by the sword (article 15) produced by the prosecution, which contradicted the eyewitness account. Held that the discovery of the sword lost its probative value and failed to connect the accused to the crime (Paras 13-14). C) Criminal Appeal - Appeal against Acquittal - Standard of Review - The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is manifestly unreasonable or perverse. The trial court had taken a plausible view of the evidence, noting the hostility of witnesses and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. Held that the appeal and revision were rightly dismissed (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused on the basis that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, given the injured eyewitness testimony, the fact that many independent witnesses turned hostile, and the medical evidence contradicting the weapon allegedly used.
Final Decision
The High Court found no fault with the trial court's acquittal. The injured witness's testimony was internally contradictory and uncorroborated by independent witnesses who turned hostile. The medical evidence established that the sword allegedly used could not have caused the injuries, rendering the discovery of the sword meaningless. Consequently, the appeal and revision were dismissed, the acquittal upheld, and the bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- The testimony of an injured witness
- though ordinarily entitled to credence
- cannot form the basis of conviction if it is inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses
- where the weapon of offence as deposed by the witness is found by medical evidence to be incapable of causing the injuries
- the prosecution case collapses
- an appeal against acquittal will not be interfered with unless the trial court's view is unreasonable or perverse.
