Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16th September 1995 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993, acquitting the respondents/accused Pralhad Maruti Rankhamb and Ram Pralhad Rankhamb of offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 22nd October 1992 at about 1 to 1.35 p.m., the deceased Vithal Sasture went to his son Manohar's land. The accused, who were cousins of Manohar's wife Vijayabai, were allegedly annoyed because Vijayabai's father Pandurang had sold 4 acres of land to Manohar instead of to them. According to the prosecution, when the deceased was taking a round of the land, accused No.1 Pralhad was carrying an axe and accused No.2 Ram was carrying a lathi, and they attacked the deceased, causing his death. The complainant Shahaji Vithal Sasture, son of the deceased, and other family members including Bhagwat (nephew), Surekha, and Shivaji were present nearby. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence of the eyewitnesses unreliable and lacking corroboration. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence. The High Court, after hearing the APP for the State and the advocate for the respondents, examined the evidence on record. The court noted that the witnesses were all related to the deceased and were interested witnesses. Their testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent evidence. The medical evidence did not fully support the prosecution version regarding the manner of assault. The court held that the trial court's view was a possible and reasonable view, and the appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse. The court found no perversity in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Standard of Review - Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal unless the view taken by the trial court is perverse or unreasonable - The High Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, must give due weight to the trial court's appreciation of evidence and findings of fact - Held that unless the trial court's conclusion is manifestly erroneous or based on no evidence, the acquittal should not be disturbed (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Act - Credibility of Witnesses - Interested Witnesses - Testimony of related witnesses must be scrutinized with care and caution - The evidence of the complainant and other family members, being interested witnesses, requires corroboration in material particulars - Held that in the absence of independent corroboration, conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of interested witnesses (Paras 5-8). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 r/w 34 - Murder - Motive - Land Dispute - Existence of motive alone is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The prosecution must establish the chain of circumstances leading to the death of the deceased - Held that where the evidence of eyewitnesses is unreliable and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version, the accused are entitled to acquittal (Paras 3-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and warrants interference by the appellate court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents/accused.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal against acquittal
- standard of proof
- credibility of witnesses
- motive and its sufficiency
- corroboration of testimony
