Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag dated 11.7.1988, which acquitted all four accused persons of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The criminal revision application was filed by the original complainant against the same judgment. The prosecution case was that on 26.10.1986, the deceased Janu was standing in the courtyard of his house, and the accused, who were standing in the gallery of their house opposite, started shooting at him at about 4 p.m. Accused No.1 was the father of accused Nos.2 and 3, while accused No.4 was a stranger. During the pendency of the appeal, accused Nos.1 and 4 died, and the appeal abated against them. The High Court considered the evidence and found that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent and the identification of the accused was doubtful. The court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore the acquittal was upheld. The appeal and revision were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC - The State appealed against acquittal of accused for murder and attempt to murder. The High Court found that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent and identification of accused was doubtful. The court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore the acquittal was upheld. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Law - Arms Act - Possession of firearm - Section 25(1)(a) Indian Arms Act - The accused were also charged under the Arms Act. However, due to lack of evidence and death of some accused, the appeal abated against them. The remaining accused were acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove possession. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal.
Final Decision
The appeal and revision are dismissed. The acquittal of the accused is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Identification doubtful
- Common intention not proved
- Appeal dismissed
