Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of four respondents (Shripati Govinda Varape, Krishna Dattu Varape, Bajirao Shripati Varape, and Shahaji Dattu Varape) by the trial court for offences under Sections 302, 326, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that on 28 August 1991, at 7:45 a.m., the accused persons, armed with sickles, obstructed Shamrao and his father Ramchandra at a field in Darewadi, Kotoli, and started abusing them. Accused No. 4 Shahaji allegedly gave a sickle blow on Shamrao's chest, causing his death. The complainant Pandurang, son of Ramchandra, claimed to have witnessed the incident. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the evidence inconsistent and unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the eyewitnesses gave contradictory versions regarding the manner of assault and the role of each accused. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove common intention under Section 34 IPC, as there was no evidence of a pre-arranged plan. The court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted in an appeal against acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse (Paras 1-10). B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Murder - Common intention - To convict under Section 34, there must be evidence of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds - In the absence of such evidence, conviction cannot be sustained - Held that the prosecution failed to prove common intention among the accused (Paras 5-10). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Inconsistencies in evidence - Where the eyewitnesses give contradictory versions regarding the manner of assault and the role of each accused, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused - Held that the trial court rightly acquitted the accused due to material inconsistencies (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 302, 326, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- Inconsistent evidence
- Failure to prove common intention
- Benefit of doubt
- No interference in appeal against acquittal unless perverse
