Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case on Ground of Parity with Co-Accused Acquitted Earlier. Role attributed and evidence against both accused being identical, the appellant is entitled to acquittal following the acquittal of co-accused Purshottam Gharat.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 41
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sunil Motiram Mohite, was convicted along with Purshottam Gharat (accused no.2) and others for the murder of a person under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.630 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court challenging his conviction. Meanwhile, Purshottam Gharat had filed a separate appeal (Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1994) which was allowed by a Division Bench of the same High Court on 26.10.1999, and he was acquitted. In the present appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the role attributed to the appellant and the evidence against him were identical to that of Purshottam Gharat. The learned APP did not dispute this submission. The court perused the judgment in the co-accused's appeal and found that the role and evidence were indeed similar. Consequently, applying the principle of parity, the court held that the appellant was entitled to the same benefit and acquitted him. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Parity in Acquittal - Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant and co-accused Purshottam Gharat were convicted for murder under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The co-accused was acquitted by a Division Bench of the same High Court in Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1994 on 26.10.1999. The role attributed and evidence against both were identical. The court held that for the self-same reasons, the appellant also deserves to be acquitted. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant, whose role and evidence are identical to a co-accused who has been acquitted, is entitled to acquittal on the ground of parity.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. He be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Law Points

  • Parity in criminal appeals
  • Acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence
  • Section 302 read with 34 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 87

Criminal Appeal No.630 of 1994

2005-07-21

Smt. Ranjana Desai, D.B. Bhosale

Shri A.R. Rasal for the appellant, Shri S.S. Tatkare APP for the respondent

Sunil Motiram Mohite

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal on the ground of parity with co-accused who was acquitted.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.

Previous Decisions

The trial court convicted the appellant and co-accused Purshottam Gharat. Purshottam Gharat was acquitted by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1994 on 26.10.1999.

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal on the ground of parity with co-accused Purshottam Gharat who was acquitted on identical evidence.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant's counsel submitted that the role attributed and evidence against the appellant and co-accused Purshottam Gharat were identical, and therefore the appellant should be acquitted for the same reasons. The learned APP did not dispute this submission.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the role attributed and evidence against two accused are identical, and one accused has been acquitted by a competent court, the other accused is entitled to acquittal on the principle of parity.

Judgment Excerpts

The role attributed and allegedly played by the appellant and Purshottam Gharat (accused no.2) was identical. The evidence against both was similar and in view thereof for the self same reasons the present appellant also deserves to be acquitted.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No.80 of 1992 on 18th July, 1994. He filed Criminal Appeal No.630 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court. Co-accused Purshottam Gharat filed Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1994 which was allowed on 26.10.1999. The present appeal was heard on 21st July, 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34, 147, 148, 149
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case on Ground of Parity with Co-Accused Acquitted Earlier. Role attributed and evidence against both accused being identical, the appellant is entitled to acquittal following the acquittal of co-accused Pu...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit — Upholds Trial Court's Finding of Equal Shares Based on Sale Deed and Revenue Records. Co-ownership established by joint purchase; plaintiff's claim of 70% share rejected for lack of evide...