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 dated 25.04.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2002, whereby the respondents (original accused) were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The case of the prosecution was that on 17.11.2001, the deceased Parbat Karshan was taken by accused No.1 Devanand Bhatu to a farm in Village Kotda on a motorcycle, where he was killed with a weapon called 'skyth', and thereafter, with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4, his dead body was buried in the same farm. The prosecution alleged that the motive was a dispute over a local body election result. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. During the pendency of the appeal, accused No.1 and accused No.4 died, and the appeal against them abated. The High Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, the learned advocate for the original complainant, and the learned advocates for the respondents. The Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-10 Kheemanandbhai Nebhabhai Bhetariya, who claimed to have last seen the deceased with accused No.1. The Court found that the last seen evidence was not reliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The High Court held that the trial court's view was a possible and reasonable view, and the appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the finding is perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Perversity - State appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC - Court examined whether the trial court's finding of not guilty was perverse or unreasonable - Held that the appellate court should not interfere with acquittal unless the view taken by the trial court is impossible or wholly unsustainable (Paras 1-12). B) Evidence Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Murder case based on circumstantial evidence - Prosecution relied on last seen evidence of PW-10 - Court found that the last seen evidence was not reliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration - Held that the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt (Paras 8-12). C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of interference - The High Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced and the appellate court should not lightly reverse the finding of acquittal (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2002, is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.04.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2002 is confirmed. The appeal against accused No.1 and accused No.4 stands abated due to their death.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Burden of proof
- Reasonable doubt
- Section 378 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 135 Bombay Police Act
