Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 CrPC challenging the judgment and order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No.221 of 1995, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (original accused Nos.1 to 3) died, and the appeal abated qua them. The prosecution case was that on 16.10.1999, after dinner, the complainant and Sangram (the deceased) went to their field to guard the paddy crop. At about 1:30 a.m., when they reached the boundary of the field, the accused persons allegedly attacked Sangram with weapons, causing his death. The complainant claimed to have witnessed the incident. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence, particularly the dying declaration and the testimony of the complainant. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the dying declaration was inconsistent and not corroborated by medical evidence. The complainant's testimony was also found to be contradictory and lacking credibility. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of accused Nos.4 to 7 was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Standard of Proof - Section 378 CrPC - The High Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - A dying declaration must be consistent, voluntary, and free from tutoring. In the present case, the dying declaration was found unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. (Paras 10-15) C) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 149 IPC - For conviction under Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. In the absence of reliable evidence, the accused cannot be held vicariously liable. (Paras 16-20) D) Criminal Law - Motive - Proof - Motive alone is insufficient to convict unless corroborated by other evidence. The prosecution failed to establish motive beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No.221 of 1995 is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No.221 of 1995 is confirmed. The appeal qua accused Nos.1 to 3 stands abated.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- standard of proof
- appreciation of evidence
- dying declaration
- motive
- common intention
- benefit of doubt
