Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.52/1999, acquitting seven accused persons (respondents) of offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 14th August 1998, at about 9:00 p.m., the victim Sominath Pache was assaulted by the accused with sticks and iron rods near the house of one Pandurang Pache, resulting in his death. The motive was an earlier dispute over using a common passage. The trial court acquitted the accused giving them the benefit of doubt, primarily on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was contradictory and unreliable, and the investigation was improper. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse. The High Court noted that the prosecution witnesses had given contradictory versions regarding the manner of assault and the weapons used, and the investigating officer had not conducted a proper investigation. The High Court held that the appeal against acquittal could be allowed only if the judgment was perverse, which was not the case. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Acquittal Appeal - Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against acquittal - State challenged acquittal of seven accused for murder and other offences - Trial court acquitted accused giving benefit of doubt due to contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses and improper investigation - High Court held that the view taken by trial court was plausible and not perverse - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-20). B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Scope of interference - High Court can interfere only if the judgment of acquittal is perverse or based on no evidence - If two views are possible, the one favouring accused should be adopted - Held that the trial court's view was reasonable and not perverse (Paras 18-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Judgment of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 29th May 1999 in Sessions Case No.52/1999 is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- Appreciation of evidence
- Benefit of doubt
- Circumstantial evidence
- Credibility of witnesses
- Fatal injuries
- Improper investigation
- Murder
- Presumption of innocence
- Reasonable doubt
