Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment dated 29.12.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, acquitting the respondents (original accused) in Sessions Case No.66 of 2002 for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 18.11.1997 and 19.11.1997, the accused assaulted the complainant and others following an earlier incident where accused No.1 made indecent comments to the sister of PW5 Rajendra. On 19.11.1997, while PW5 and Sambhaji Sathe were washing in a paddy field, accused Nos.1 and 5 assaulted them with a cycle chain and sticks. Accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and Manik (deceased) also came and assaulted them. PW4 Mohan Sathe arrived with a loaded gun, and during a scuffle with accused No.4, the gun accidentally discharged. The injured were examined and FIR was lodged. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to this appeal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses, including the injured, turned hostile and did not support the case. The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony regarding the use of a gun. The identification of the accused was doubtful due to darkness and lack of light. The court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Inconsistent Evidence - The State appealed against acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC - The prosecution case was based on alleged assault following indecent comments - The trial court acquitted due to inconsistencies and doubtful identification - The High Court held that the view taken by the trial court was plausible and not perverse, and interference was not warranted (Paras 1-17). B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witnesses - Identification - The prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case - The injured witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding the incident and the role of each accused - The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony regarding the use of a gun - Held that the acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence (Paras 4-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of the IPC was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.66 of 2002 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- Inconsistent evidence
- Hostile witnesses
- Doubtful identification
- Benefit of doubt
- Sections 143
- 147
- 148
- 323
- 324
- 307
- 504
- 506 r/w 149 IPC
