Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 02 of 2000. The respondents-accused, Mohmmed @ Batuk Karimbhai Meer and Gaffar @ Nazir Valibhai Ghanchi, were acquitted of offences under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The prosecution case was that on 13.9.1999 at around 7:45 p.m., near Bhojpara in Gondal town, the accused No. 2, Gaffar, being provoked by the deceased Ganeshnath Mohannath's persistent demand for repayment of a loan of ₹4,500/- lent to accused No. 1, stopped the rickshaw he was driving, alighted, and launched a sudden attack on the deceased with a knife, while accused No. 1 Mahmad was sitting as a passenger. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution witnesses, including the alleged eyewitnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The High Court, in the appeal under Section 378 CrPC, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the sole eyewitness, PW-1, was declared hostile and his testimony did not inspire confidence. The other witnesses also did not corroborate the prosecution version. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable, based on no evidence, or if the view taken is not a possible view. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Credibility of Witnesses - Hostile Witness - The testimony of a witness declared hostile cannot be rejected in entirety; however, the court must scrutinize it carefully and accept only that part which is corroborated by other reliable evidence. (Paras 5-8) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 114 - Murder - Common Intention - For conviction under Section 302 with Section 114, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to cause death. In the absence of credible evidence, acquittal is justified. (Paras 2-9) D) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 37(1) read with Section 135 - Offence - The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under the Bombay Police Act as the evidence regarding possession of weapons was not reliable. (Paras 2-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was perverse or unreasonable, warranting interference by the High Court in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondents-accused.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption of innocence
- scope of interference in acquittal appeals
- credibility of witnesses
- corroboration of evidence
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 114 IPC
- Section 37(1) Bombay Police Act
