Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad heard a criminal appeal by the State of Maharashtra and a criminal revision application by the original informant, challenging the acquittal of two accused in a murder case. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of Rajaram Keshavrao Sable. The prosecution case was that on 5 October 1990, the informant Badrinath Sable heard his father's cries for help and, upon rushing to the spot, saw the accused and three others fleeing. The victim told the informant that the accused had beaten him with sticks because he and his son had filed criminal cases against them. The victim was taken to the hospital but was declared dead. The police registered an offence initially under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC, but later a charge under Section 302/34 was framed. The other three co-accused were tried separately and acquitted, and the High Court had refused leave to appeal against that acquittal. In the present trial, the prosecution did not examine the medical officer who conducted the postmortem. The only eyewitness examined, PW2 Mahadev Sable, who was a panch for the spot panchnama, initially claimed to have witnessed the assault, but his testimony was riddled with contradictions and omissions. He admitted that his statement was first recorded before the court, and he could not explain why his detailed account was not recorded by the police. During cross-examination, he denied parts of his own earlier testimony, including the shouts he had allegedly heard. The court noted that the evidence of PW2 was inconsistent and that the failure to examine the medical officer further weakened the prosecution case. The court observed that the prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions and did not inspire confidence. The judgment ends abruptly without recording the final decision, but the court's analysis indicates that the appeal was being heard on merits and that the prosecution case was found to be lacking.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The High Court examined the appeal against the acquittal of the accused who were alleged to have beaten the deceased to death with sticks after demanding withdrawal of criminal cases - The prosecution's key eyewitness (PW2) gave contradictory statements about hearing the victim's cries and witnessing the assault; he admitted that his statement was first recorded in court, and many parts of his testimony were not stated before police - The court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine the medical officer who performed the postmortem, leaving the cause of death unproved through expert evidence - The court considered that in a separate trial of co-accused for the same incident, the High Court had already refused leave to appeal against acquittal - The court observed that the prosecution evidence was riddled with contradictions and did not inspire confidence (Paras 1-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified given the contradictory evidence of the sole eyewitness and the failure of the prosecution to examine the medical officer who conducted the postmortem.
Law Points
- acquittal appeal
- murder
- contradictions in witness testimony
- non-examination of medical officer
- hostile witness
- dying declaration
- benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- common intention
- witness credibility
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 84
Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1999 with Criminal Revision Application No. 122 of 1999
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
S.J. Salgare, K.D. Bade Patil, V.D. Salunke
State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1999); Badrinath S/o Rajaram Sable (in Criminal Revision Application No. 122 of 1999)
Sopan S/o Banshi Khalge and Shrawan S/o Banshi Khalge (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both cases); State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.3 in revision)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a murder trial, combined with a revision application by the original informant seeking to set aside the acquittal.
Remedy Sought
The appellant State and the applicant informant sought to have the acquittal set aside and the accused convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory evidence and non-examination of key witnesses.
Previous Decisions
The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1994 vide judgment dated 29 January 1999, acquitted the accused. In a separate trial of co-accused Annasaheb Sable, Ashok Annasaheb Sable and Raosaheb Bhanudas Nipte, they were also acquitted, and the High Court refused leave to appeal against that acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 93/1993.
Issues
Whether the acquittal was justified when the sole eyewitness gave contradictory testimony and the medical officer was not examined to prove the cause of death.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution did not examine the Medical Officer, who examined deceased Rajaram, who opined the cause of death of deceased Rajaram as “ Cordiorespiratory failure due to Head injury ē Intracranial haemorrhage c multiple injuries over body due to blunt & hard weapon ”. However, the prosecution did not examine the Medical Officer.
On scrutiny of evidence of this witness, the same runs contrary to the evidence of the other witness namely, Vaijinath Jadhav [PW1], who has not stated that, the aforementioned persons were assaulting deceased Rajaram.
He stated that, he does not remember as to after how many days of the death of Rajaram his statement was recorded by the police. His statement was recorded first time before the Court.
He stated before the police that, Sopan gave a blow of stick on the head of Rajaram and due to that bleeding injury was sustained by the deceased Rajaram and he fell down, but he cannot tell the reason why the said statement is not appearing in his statement before the police.
Procedural History
On 5 October 1990, FIR was registered at Beed City police station as zero number and later transferred to Dindrud Police Station as Crime No. 105/1990 under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against three co-accused on 3 January 1991, showing the present accused as absconding. Accused No.1 was arrested on 8 July 1994 and Accused No.2 on 17 July 1994. Supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 20 July 1994. The case was committed to Sessions and the trial court framed charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial concluded with the acquittal of all accused on 29 January 1999. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 247/1999 and the informant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 122/1999. The High Court heard the matters together and reserved judgment on 7 June 2017, pronounced on 23 June 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 302, 34
