Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and the original complainant Vilas Shravan Patil filed appeals against the judgment and order dated 10th May 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag, in Sessions Case No.59 of 2010, whereby the respondents (accused) were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 143, 144, 147, 148, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The prosecution case was that on 5th July 2009, PW2 Sujit Patil and others were playing cricket on the school ground of village Patnoli. PW1 Vilas Patil, PW3 Sandeep Patil, and PW4 Kashinath Patil were sitting by the road watching the match. Accused No.1 Deepak Patil and his brother Anil got down from a Safari vehicle, came to the ground, and started abusing PW2 Sujit Patil. They left and returned with other accused armed with hockey sticks, swords, lathis, etc., and assaulted the complainant and others. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to these appeals. The High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of assault and weapons used. The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony. The court held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Interference with Acquittal - The High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, if plausible, should not be disturbed. (Paras 1-24)
B) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Material Contradictions - Where the prosecution witnesses give contradictory versions regarding the manner of assault and the weapons used, and the medical evidence does not support the ocular testimony, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-20)
C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to Murder - Ingredients - To constitute an offence under Section 307, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause death and the act was done in furtherance of that intention. In the absence of such proof, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 15-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 307, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 504 read with 149 IPC and under Section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 10th May 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag, in Sessions Case No.59 of 2010 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- appeal dismissed
- no interference with trial court's findings
- prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- material contradictions in evidence
- medical evidence not corroborating ocular testimony
- benefit of doubt to accused
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 83
Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No.732 of 2013
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai
Mr. H.J. Dedia, A.P.P. for the Appellant-State; Mr. Nitin Sejpal with Mrs. Pooja Sejpal for original complainant and for the Appellant in Appeal/732/2013; Mr. Nishigandh N. Patil for Respondent Nos.1 to 7
The State of Maharashtra (in Appeal No.32/2014) and Vilas Shravan Patil (in Appeal No.732/2013)
Deepak Parshuram Patil and others (7 respondents)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals against acquittal in a criminal case involving attempt to murder and other offences.
Remedy Sought
The State and the original complainant sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the accused.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused, and the State and complainant challenged the acquittal.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag, acquitted the accused on 10th May 2013 in Sessions Case No.59 of 2010.
Issues
Whether the trial court's findings leading to acquittal are perverse or based on no evidence.
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 307, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 504 read with 149 IPC and under Section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant-State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence.
The respondents argued that the trial court's findings were plausible and based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, if plausible, should not be disturbed. In this case, the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory versions, and medical evidence did not corroborate ocular testimony, hence the accused were rightly given benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2013 in Sessions Case No.59 of 2010 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag, acquitted the aforesaid Respondents /accused for offences punishable under sections 307 r/w. 149, 323 r/w 149, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 504 of the IPC and under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 5.7.2009 PW2 Sujit Patil and some other boys were playing cricket on the school ground of village – Patnoli.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag) acquitted the accused on 10th May 2013 in Sessions Case No.59 of 2010. The State filed Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2014, and the original complainant filed Criminal Appeal No.732 of 2013 against the acquittal. Both appeals were heard together and dismissed by the High Court on 25th July 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 149
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37(1), 135
