Case Note & Summary
The defacto complainant, father of the deceased Gopinath, filed this criminal appeal under Section 372 CrPC against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2018 passed by the XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai in S.C.No.189/2017. The trial court had acquitted respondents 2 to 4 (A1 to A3) of charges under Sections 341, 323, and 302 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 29.08.2016 at about 6.15 PM, PW1 and his son Gopinath were waylaid by the accused near their house, abused, and attacked with wooden logs and stones. The deceased sustained a head injury and died on 31.08.2016. PW1 claimed that A1 threw a big stone on the deceased's head. The trial court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in the testimony of PW1 and other eyewitnesses, and failure to prove common intention. In appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that PW1's version was contradicted by other prosecution witnesses, including PW2, PW3, and PW5, who did not support the prosecution case or gave varying accounts. The medical evidence showed the deceased died due to head injury, but the exact role of each accused was not clearly established. The court held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 372 CrPC - Scope of interference - High Court in appeal against acquittal can re-appreciate evidence but should not interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable - Held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse (Paras 10-15). B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 r/w 34 IPC - Common intention - Prosecution must prove that each accused shared common intention to cause death - Inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts regarding role of each accused and manner of attack create doubt - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 16-25). C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of evidence - Inconsistencies - Minor contradictions do not affect credibility but material contradictions regarding core events render testimony unreliable - Held that PW1's testimony contradicted by other witnesses on crucial aspects (Paras 20-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 341, 323, 302 read with 34 IPC was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2018 in S.C.No.189/2017.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 372 CrPC
- Scope of interference in acquittal appeals
- Appreciation of evidence
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts
- Benefit of doubt
