Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th February 1989 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.3 of 1987, acquitting all six accused persons who were charged and tried for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were that on 8th July 1986 at 10 a.m., the accused attempted to commit murder of Sarjerao by means of axe, sickle, kicks and fist blows near land bearing Gat No.595 owned by Baburao Chougule. The dispute originated between original accused no.6 Ishwara and Maku, father of the victim Sarjerao and complainant Rangrao, over sand and stones allegedly dumped by Ishwara on Maku's plot. The High Court, while admitting the appeal on 21st August 1989, refused leave against accused nos.3 to 6, and thus the appeal was heard only against accused nos.1 and 2. The sole eye witness was Rangrao, brother of the victim, and the victim himself also testified. According to their evidence, accused no.1 inflicted two blows with an axe on the neck and back of Sarjerao, and when he fell, accused no.2 inflicted one blow with a sickle on his head. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the sole eye witness Rangrao was an interested witness and his testimony suffered from material contradictions. Moreover, no independent witnesses were examined despite being available. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of accused nos.1 and 2 was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The appellate court should not lightly reverse an acquittal unless there are compelling reasons. (Para 1-3) B) Evidence Act - Sole Eye Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a sole eye witness must be scrutinized with care. If the witness is interested and there are material contradictions, the court may reject the testimony. In this case, the sole eye witness Rangrao was the brother of the victim and his evidence was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. (Para 2-3) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 - Attempt to Murder - Unlawful Assembly - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared common object to commit murder. Failure to examine independent witnesses and contradictions in evidence led to acquittal being upheld. (Para 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of accused nos.1 and 2 by the trial court was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of accused nos.1 and 2 upheld.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Sole eye witness
- Unreliable testimony
- Independent witnesses
- Benefit of doubt
- Sections 147
- 148
- 307 read with 149 IPC
