Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 21.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Camp at Modasa in Sessions Case No.101 of 1998, whereby the trial court acquitted the respondent-accused Gopalbhai Mansingbhai for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case of the prosecution was that on 14.07.1998, the accused, along with his wife and cousin brother, came from Madhya Pradesh to Gujarat for labour work at Jyoti Quory in Jashvantpura. The accused suspected that the deceased Avtar had an illicit relationship with his wife. On the day of the incident, a quarrel took place in the quarry, and the accused allegedly inflicted an axe blow on Avtar, causing his death. The complainant, who was the brother of the deceased, filed an FIR at Bayad Police Station. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet. The trial court, after examining the evidence, acquitted the accused. The State appealed against the acquittal. The High Court, after hearing the arguments and perusing the record, found that the trial court's judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. The High Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances and the evidence of witnesses was inconsistent. The court held that the trial court had rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378(1)(3) CrPC - Perversity - The State appealed against acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The appellate court should not lightly reverse an acquittal unless the findings are clearly unreasonable or against the weight of evidence. (Paras 1-14) B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial evidence - The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. The High Court found that the evidence of witnesses was inconsistent and the chain of circumstances was not complete. The trial court had rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused. (Paras 2-14) C) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to murder - Section 307 IPC - The charge under Section 307 IPC was also not proved as the prosecution failed to establish any attempt to murder beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2-14) D) Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - The offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act was also not established due to lack of evidence. (Paras 2-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse and required interference by the High Court under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption of innocence
- perversity
- murder
- circumstantial evidence
- benefit of doubt
