Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.05.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha in Sessions Case No.102 of 1997. The respondents-accused, Babubhai Harjibhai Gamar and another, were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 302, 337, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The prosecution case was that on 30.04.1997 at about 7:00 p.m., a quarrel took place between the grandfather of the complainant, Galabhai, and his sons on one side and Chuniya on the other side. During the quarrel, the accused allegedly inflicted injuries on Galabhai, who later died. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence, including the dying declaration and oral testimony. The court noted that the dying declaration was not recorded by a Magistrate and was not corroborated by medical evidence or eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by acquittal. The court found no perversity in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Appeal - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Standard of Review - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by acquittal. (Paras 1, 12-13) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - A dying declaration must be consistent and corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the dying declaration was not recorded by a Magistrate and was not corroborated by medical evidence or eyewitnesses, making it unreliable. (Paras 7-9) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Proof of Guilt - The prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt as the eyewitnesses turned hostile and the dying declaration was not trustworthy. (Paras 10-11) D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 337 - Causing Hurt - The charge under Section 337 was not proved as the injured witness did not support the prosecution case. (Para 10) E) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504 - Intentional Insult - The charge of intentional insult was not established due to lack of credible evidence. (Para 10) F) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 135 - Penalty for Offences - The charge under Section 135 was not proved as the prosecution evidence was insufficient. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha in Sessions Case No.102 of 1997 is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha in Sessions Case No.102 of 1997.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption of innocence
- standard of proof in criminal appeal
- appreciation of evidence
- dying declaration
- oral testimony
- corroboration
- motive
- common intention
