Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa appealed against the judgment and order dated 28/12/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2001, whereby the respondents (accused) were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 427, 307, 115 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case was that on 17/07/2000 between 20.00 to 20.30 hours at Palmar, Pomburpa, the accused nos. 1 to 5, in furtherance of common intention, formed an unlawful assembly armed with iron bar, dandas, etc., damaged fencing to the property of Shri George Fernandes, and assaulted his family members including Catharine, Sonia, Sheela, and one Keith D'Souza with knife and sword, causing grievous injuries. Accused no. 5 allegedly stabbed Keith D'Souza with a sword on his abdomen and back, and stabbed Catharine and Sheela on their hands, while accused no. 4 stabbed Keith with a knife on his stomach. Accused no. 6 was charged with abetment. The trial court framed charges, and the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, while the defence examined 8 witnesses including accused no. 2. Upon assessment of evidence, the trial court acquitted all accused. The State appealed. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the appeal against acquittal should not be interfered with unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The court found that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence, noting material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, and the lack of independent witnesses. The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was justified. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable, based on no evidence, or the trial court has misread the evidence or applied wrong legal principles. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against Acquittal - The High Court's power to review evidence is limited; it must give due weight to the trial court's opinion on credibility of witnesses. (Para 5) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 427, 307, 115 read with Section 149 - Unlawful Assembly and Grievous Hurt - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with common object. In this case, the trial court found the evidence of prosecution witnesses unreliable due to contradictions and omissions, and the High Court upheld the acquittal. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 427, 307, 115 read with Section 149 IPC was perverse or unreasonable, warranting interference by the appellate court.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondents upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld when prosecution evidence is unreliable
- contradictions in witness statements
- no independent witnesses
- benefit of doubt to accused
- appeal against acquittal limited scope
