Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of five accused persons who were charged with gang rape and murder under Sections 376(2)(g), 302, 457 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The incident occurred on the night of 22-23 October 1991 in Aurad Shahajani, District Latur, during the festival of Kojagiri Pournima. The victim, a college-going daughter of a local professor, was allegedly gang-raped and burnt to death in her kitchen. The prosecution case was that the accused, who were wayward students, had earlier harassed the victim, and on the night of the incident, they gained entry into the house, committed the offences, and bolted the door from outside. The key eyewitness was the victim's younger sister, Dharti (PW13), who claimed to have seen three of the accused leaving the house and bolting the door. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the sole testimony of Dharti unreliable due to her unnatural conduct, delayed disclosure, and omissions in the FIR. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court wrongly disbelieved the witness and that other evidence, including earlier misconduct and the presence of the accused near the scene, established guilt. The defence contended that the acquittal was based on a possible view of the evidence and should not be interfered with. The High Court set forth two points for determination: whether the prosecution proved the offences and whether the acquittal should be overturned. After examining the evidence, the Court noted that the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of PW13. The Court highlighted that she did not inform anyone about seeing the accused until after the funeral, the FIR lodged by her father did not mention this crucial fact, and several prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. The Court applied the settled principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is impossible or perverse. Finding that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was reasonable and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Sole Eyewitness Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(g), 302, 457, 120B, 34 - The prosecution case hinged on the testimony of PW13 Dharti, who claimed to have seen Accused Nos. 1 to 3 leaving the house and bolting the door from outside after the incident - The trial Court found her conduct unnatural as she did not disclose this to anyone immediately, told her father only after the funeral, and the FIR omitted this crucial fact - Held that the trial Court rightly disbelieved her testimony and the view was a possible one (Paras 5, 12). B) Criminal Law - Delay in Lodging FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - The incident occurred on the night of 22/23 October 1991, but the FIR was lodged on 24 October 1991 despite the complainant learning of the alleged involvement on 23 October - The Court noted that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and the FIR itself omitted the key fact of Dharti seeing the accused - Held that the delay weakened the prosecution case (Paras 5, 8). C) Criminal Law - Hostile Witnesses and Corroboration - The prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and there was no corroboration for the testimony of PW13 - The Court observed that the trial Court's view was a possible one, and interference in acquittal appeal is limited - Held that the acquittal is not perverse (Paras 5, 6). D) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Scope of Interference - The appellate Court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the view taken by the trial Court is impossible or perverse - The trial Court's appreciation of evidence was reasonable and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the appeal fails (Paras 5, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved that the accused committed criminal house breaking by night, gang rape and murder; Whether the trial court's acquittal must be set aside
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Sole eyewitness testimony
- Delay in FIR
- Hostile witnesses
- Corroboration
- Acquittal appeal scope
