Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the acquittal of six accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1996. The prosecution case arose out of an incident on 2nd November 1995 at the Market Yard, Dhule, where deceased Anant Babaji Yadav was allegedly killed by accused No.1 Rajendra alias Raju by stabbing him with a Gupti on the chest. The motive was a long-standing rivalry between the families of the accused and the deceased over tractor hiring for construction work and Gram Panchayat elections. The informant Santosh Dada Pawar (PW1) lodged the FIR at Azadnagar Police Station, initially under Section 302 IPC. Subsequently, the informant gave supplementary statements, and in a statement recorded two months later, he named the other five accused as being present and giving slaps to the deceased. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses: PW1 Santosh, PW2 Uttam, and PW5 Bhilajirao. The trial court, after a full trial, acquitted all accused of charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 341 r/w 149, 120B r/w 149 IPC and Section 37(1)(3) punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, finding serious contradictions, omissions, and improvements in the prosecution evidence. The State argued before the High Court that the eyewitnesses were consistent and the trial court misappreciated the evidence. The defense contended that PW1’s FIR and supplementary statements were materially contradictory regarding the role of accused No.2 and the presence of others, that no overt act was attributed to accused Nos. 2-6, and that the trial court’s acquittal was based on a plausible view that ought not to be disturbed. The defense alternatively argued that if convicted, the single blow after a sudden altercation fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The High Court heard the arguments and reserved judgment. No final decision is available in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The High Court was called upon to decide whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse in view of contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses and the delayed naming of accused Nos. 2-6. The defense argued that the trial court's view was plausible and thus interference unwarranted. (Paras 2-5, 30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order of acquittal can be sustained in light of the alleged contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses and the delayed implication of accused Nos. 2-6.
Law Points
- appeal against acquittal
- plausible view
- contradictions
- delay in naming accused
- benefit of doubt
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 34
Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2000
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
P.G. Borade, R.M. Deshmukh
The State of Maharashtra (through Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule)
1) Rajendra @ Raju Rambhau Yadav, 2) Zumber Shiva Yadav, 3) Ulhas Rambhau Yadav, 4) Dinesh Pandurang Yadav, 5) Gangaram Rambhau Yadav, 6) Balu Zumber Yadav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
State seeking to set aside acquittal and convict the accused for murder and other offences
Filing Reason
Trial court acquitted all six accused for offences under IPC and Bombay Police Act, finding prosecution evidence unreliable due to contradictions and delay
Previous Decisions
Sessions Case No. 53 of 1996, Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, acquitted all accused on 30th November 1999
Issues
Whether the acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside
Whether the contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses PW1 Santosh, PW2 Uttam, and PW5 Bhilajirao were material
Whether the delay in naming accused Nos. 2-6 in the supplementary statement was fatal to the prosecution case
Whether any overt act was attributed to accused Nos. 2-6
Whether recovery of weapon was proved
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that three eyewitnesses had categorically stated that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with a Gupti and that the trial court misappreciated the evidence
Defense argued that the informant PW1 gave contradictory versions between the FIR and supplementary statements, particularly regarding the role of accused No.2 and the presence of others
Defense contended that trial court's view was plausible and even if another view possible, acquittal should not be interfered with
Defense also submitted that no overt act was attributed to accused Nos.2-6 and their names were included as an afterthought
In alternative, defense argued that even if conviction, exception 4 to Section 300 IPC may apply as only one blow was given on stomach after sudden altercation
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court acquitted all the accused persons from the offences with which they were charged, as stated herein above in Para1 of the Judgment.
It is submitted that PW1 Santosh stated in the F.I.R. that accused Raju took out knife from his pocket and stabbed Anant, however in supplementary statement he stated that accused No.2 Zumber gave Gupti to accused Raju, and then Raju gave blow by said Gupti on the chest of deceased Anant.
He submits that the trial Court has taken a plausible view and though another view may be possible, the same is no ground to interfere in the order of acquittal.
Procedural History
On 2nd November 1995, an FIR was registered at Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule, C.R. No.339/1995 under Section 302 IPC. Investigation conducted, supplementary statements of informant recorded on same day and on 3rd January 1996, naming accused 2-6. Charge sheet filed on 30th January 1996 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule. Case committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, as Sessions Case No.53/1996. Trial held, charges framed under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 341 r/w 149, 120B r/w 149 IPC and Section 37(1)(3) punishment under Section 135(1) Bombay Police Act. Trial court acquitted all accused on 30th November 1999. State filed Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2000 before High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 302, 149, 341, 120B, 300(Exception 4)
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37(1)(3), 135(1)
