Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.06.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.9 of 2003, whereby the respondents (original accused) were acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 307, 324, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The case arose from an FIR registered on 05.11.2002 at Patdi Police Station (C.R.No.I-50 of 2002) alleging that while playing cards at Village Visavadi, an altercation occurred and the respondents inflicted knife blows on the deceased Ambaram and injured Popat Jesang. The deceased and injured were taken to CHC Patdi and then to Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar, where the deceased was declared brought dead. The prosecution examined witnesses, but the injured witness Popat Jesang (PW-1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The trial court found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. The High Court, after hearing the learned APP and the defence counsel, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378(1)(3) CrPC - Scope of interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal would not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 4-6) B) Indian Penal Code - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Sections 302, 307, 324, 114 IPC - Appreciation of evidence - Where the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular version, the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused. The recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, without credible evidence of the manner of assault, is insufficient to sustain conviction. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence Act - Hostile witnesses - Effect of - When the material witnesses do not support the prosecution case and the injured witness does not name the accused, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. The court cannot base conviction on mere suspicion. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court was perverse and liable to be set aside in an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.9 of 2003.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- Scope of interference in acquittal appeals
- Presumption of innocence
- Benefit of doubt
- Credibility of witnesses
- Medical evidence vs ocular evidence
- Recovery of weapons
