Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa appealed against the acquittal of Dhiraj Murari Warkar from the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Sessions Court at Panaji in Sessions Case No. 1/2008. The prosecution alleged that on 30.09.2007, between 7:30 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., in the gymnasium at Usagao, Tisk, Ponda, the respondent assaulted the victim, Utkarsh Parsekar, on his head with an iron bar with the intention to kill him. The motive was stated to be a dispute over a loan of Rs.12,000/- which the respondent had given to the victim and which the victim refused to repay. After the assault, the respondent surrendered before the Ponda Police Station. The victim was admitted to Goa Medical College and Hospital for treatment. The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses and filed a chargesheet. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, which framed a charge under Section 307 IPC. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. At trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses. The respondent filed a written statement under Section 313 CrPC, alleging that he had left the gymnasium before the incident, returned to find the victim bleeding, and was detained by police when he went to inform them. He denied the loan motive and stated the victim was a friend for whom he had stood surety in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, found the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent, giving benefit of doubt. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court's rejection of the victim's testimony (PW-9) and the respondent's confessional statement was perverse. The prosecution contended that PW-9's evidence was consistent and corroborated despite temporary mental impairment, and that the respondent's three blows to the head indicated intention to kill. The defence argued that PW-9's memory loss and material omissions made his testimony unreliable; the confessional statement was recorded under police influence, violating principles in Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India; and the appeal against acquittal should not be interfered with as the trial court's view was not impossible. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the trial court's view was not perverse. The court noted that PW-9's mental faculties were affected immediately after the injury but had improved by the time his statement was recorded 5½ months later; however, material omissions in his statement, such as not stating the respondent's tense condition earlier and the word 'unconscious', weakened his credibility. The High Court did not explicitly rule on the confessional statement in the provided portion of the judgment, but the submissions highlighted doubts about its voluntariness due to police presence. The court held that the trial court's acquittal was not an impossible view and declined to interfere, dismissing the appeal and upholding the acquittal of the respondent.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's acquittal as the view taken was not perverse or impossible; merely because another view is possible does not justify reversal (Paras 12-13). B) Evidence - Injured Witness - Testimony of Victim with Head Injury - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The victim (PW-9) suffered head injuries causing unconsciousness and memory impairment; while his mental faculties improved by the time of recording statement, material omissions and inability to recall crucial details made his testimony unreliable, and the trial court correctly gave the benefit of doubt (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge's acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 307 IPC was perverse and warranted appellate interference, particularly concerning the reliability of the victim's testimony and the confessional statement?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent under Section 307 IPC, finding no perversity in the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence. The victim's testimony was weakened by material omissions and doubts about his mental state, and the confessional statement appeared to have been influenced by police presence, making it unsafe to convict.
Law Points
- scope of interference in appeal against acquittal
- appreciation of evidence of injured witness with mental incapacity
- material omissions not amounting to contradictions
- principles for recording confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC and voluntariness
