Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra preferred a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 23 February 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997, acquitting the four respondents—Bhatu Narayan Patil, Vilas Bhatu Patil, Kailas Ratan Patil, and Sopan Bhatu Patil—of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case arose from an incident on the night of 22 April 1996, when four young boys—Vijay (15), Dipak (13), Tatyabhau (13), and Ramdas (19)—were sleeping near a well in a field known as Guntara at village Bhadgaon, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. They were allegedly attacked with an axe by the accused, resulting in the death of all four. The complainant Dashrath Kalu, father of two of the deceased, suspected the accused due to long-standing family enmity over partition of ancestral property and dispute over well water. The trial court, after full trial, found the prosecution evidence unreliable: the alleged eye-witness PW6 Bayjabai’s testimony suffered from serious contradictions, omissions, and improvements; another eye-witness PW7 Surekha turned hostile; and PW8 Vishwas, to whom the eye-witnesses allegedly reported, did not support the case. The recovery of the axe from an open place accessible to all was considered doubtful. The trial court noted that material witnesses like Kesarbai, her sons, Ahilyabai, and Sunanda were not examined, drawing an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. The defence highlighted lack of motive and grudge on the part of the informant. The trial court gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted. In the High Court, the State argued that PW6 was a reliable eye-witness and circumstantial evidence supported the conviction, but the respondents contended that the view taken was plausible and no interference was warranted. They relied on precedents emphasising that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse. The High Court, after summarising the evidence, did not overturn the acquittal. The judgment thus upheld the trial court’s decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order of acquittal in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 calls for interference by the High Court
Law Points
- Standard of interference in appeal against acquittal
- appreciation of evidence of hostile witnesses
- adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act for non-examination of material witnesses
- benefit of doubt
- credibility of eye-witness testimony when contradicted
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 38
Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2000
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
Mr.S.J. Salgare, Mr.N.B. Suryawanshi
Bhatu Narayan Patil, Vilas Bhatu Patil, Kailas Ratan Patil (Deore), Sopan Bhatu Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by State against acquittal in a murder case
Remedy Sought
State seeking to set aside acquittal and convict the accused
Filing Reason
Trial court acquitted the accused despite alleged eye-witness and circumstantial evidence
Previous Decisions
Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 23-02-2000 acquitting all accused
Issues
Whether the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, particularly the testimony of alleged eye-witness PW6 Bayjabai, was perverse or unreasonable
Whether the non-examination of material witnesses and recovery of weapon from an open place justified the acquittal
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal when the trial court’s view is plausible
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: PW6 Bayjabai was an eye-witness who saw the incident; overt acts were attributed to all accused; circumstantial evidence supported prosecution; trial court failed to properly appreciate evidence; appeal should be allowed.
Respondent: PW6’s evidence suffered from contradictions, omissions, and improvements; another alleged eye-witness (PW7) turned hostile; PW8 (to whom report was made) also turned hostile; recovery of axe from open place is doubtful; material witnesses not examined—adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act; defence established grudge of informant over well water; no motive for accused to kill boys; trial court’s view is plausible; interference unwarranted; relied on precedents.
Judgment Excerpts
the boys might have been murdered by Bhatu Narayan, Supan Bhatu and Vilas Bhatu.
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 23 April 1996, complaint lodged by Dashrath Kalu, offence registered under Sections 302, 307, 447 read with 34 IPC. Investigation carried out, chargesheet filed. Charge framed under Sections 302/34 and 447/34 IPC. Trial in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 before Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. Judgment on 23 February 2000 acquitting all four accused. State appealed to High Court in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2000. Heard on 3 July 2017, judgment pronounced on 19 July 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 447, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 114(g)
