Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 2/2001, whereby the accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose out of an incident on 20 September 2000, when a quarrel took place between two groups in the village over a trivial matter of a bull grazing on a field boundary. The prosecution alleged that after an earlier altercation, the accused armed with sticks and an axe attacked the complainant party at a Ganesh Pandal, resulting in the death of Muka and injuries to Shankar. The trial court, after considering the evidence of twelve witnesses and the statements of the accused, acquitted them. The State contended that the trial court misappreciated the evidence of the injured and independent witnesses and that the accused ought to have been convicted. The defence argued that material contradictions in the eyewitness testimony and the medical evidence completely undermined the prosecution case. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.4 suffered from contradictions on material aspects, including whether P.W.4 was beaten and whether the accused used an axe. The independent witness P.W.5, the village sarpanch and a friend of P.W.1, stated that both parties fought with sticks and that the deceased and injured fell during the quarrel, contradicting the claim of axe blows. The medical evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.12 showed that all injuries were simple contusions and could have been caused by falling on the ground, and no injury by a sharp weapon was found. Thus, the possibility that the injuries resulted from a fall during a mutual quarrel could not be excluded. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had rightly acquitted the accused. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictions in Eyewitness Testimony - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 was contradictory as to whether P.W.4 was beaten; independent witness P.W.5 stated both groups fought with sticks, not axe, contradicting claim of axe blow - Held that such contradictions render prosecution case unreliable (Paras 5-9).
B) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Inconsistency with Ocular Account - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - Medical officers opined injuries on Shankar and deceased Muka were simple and could be caused by fall on ground, not by sharp weapon, directly contradicting allegation of axe attack - Held that medical evidence supports defence theory of accidental fall during quarrel (Paras 10-14).
C) Criminal Law - Standard of Proof - Benefit of Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307 - Prosecution failed to rule out possibility that injuries resulted from falling during a mutual quarrel; failures in proof entitled accused to acquittal - Held that trial court correctly acquitted accused of murder and attempted murder charges (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed murder and attempted murder, and whether the trial court's acquittal was justified.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The acquittal of all accused was confirmed.
Law Points
- Contradictions in evidence
- medical evidence inconsistent with ocular testimony
- injuries possible from fall
- benefit of doubt
- acquittal justified under Sections 302 and 307 IPC
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (01) 146
Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2005
R.K. Deshpande, M.G. Giratkar
I.J. Damle (Additional Public Prosecutor) for appellant, S.G. Joshi holding for S.S. Ghate for respondents
Natthu s/o Raoji Bhajbhuje, Ramesh S/o Natthu Bhajbhuje, Suresh S/o Natthu Bhajbhuje, Subhash S/o Natthu Bhajbhuje, Anandrao S/o Natthu Bhajbhuje
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
The State sought conviction of the accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 of the Indian Penal Code
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused, leading the State to appeal
Previous Decisions
The Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide judgment dated 30-6-2005 in Sessions Case No. 2/2001 acquitted all accused
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed murder and attempted murder
Submissions/Arguments
Additional Public Prosecutor: trial court ignored evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7; accused beat victims with axe and sticks; death and injuries proved
Defence counsel: material contradictions in witness testimony; medical evidence shows injuries could be from fall; independent witness stated both sides used sticks, no axe; prosecution failed to prove guilt
Ratio Decidendi
When eyewitness testimony contains material contradictions and is not corroborated by medical evidence, and the possibility of injuries arising from a fall during a mutual quarrel cannot be excluded, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
P.W. 5 Sarpanch of the village and friend of P.W. 1 supported the case of prosecution. But he has not stated that accused persons gave blow of axe to P.W. 1 and deceased Muka. He has stated that P.W. 1 Shankar was beaten by accused Suresh and Subhash. Subhash gave blow of stick on the head of Shankar. Shankar fell down. When Muka intervened, he was also beaten by stick. He has specifically stated that both the parties (accused and complainant party) were beating each other by means of sticks. He has stated that in the quarrel, Muka fell down. Thereafter they taken him to the hospital.
It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 5, Sarpanch Shri Purushottam Suryawanshi that there was quarrel between two groups. In the quarrel, both were having sticks in their hands. They beat each other by sticks. Though P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 have stated that accused Subhash beat P.W. 1 and deceased Muka by axe, but there is no evidence to corroborate their versions.
Medical evidence also supports the defence of accused. P.W. 12 Dr. Salkute who examined P.W. 1 specifically stated that injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 can be caused by falling on the ground. There is no dispute that P.W. 1 fell down during the quarrel. P.W. 12 not noticed any injury on the person of P.W. 4. P.W. 4 has stated that he was beaten by accused persons by sticks but P.W. 1 not stated anything in respect of beating to P.W. 4.
Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused persons killed deceased Muka by causing injuries by sharp weapon i.e. axe. Prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons attempted to commit murder of P.W. 1 Shankar. On the other hand it is clear that P.W. 1 and deceased Muka sustained injuries during the quarrel by falling on the ground. Learned trial Court rightly considered all the evidence on record in right perspective and rightly acquitted all the accused/respondents.
Procedural History
The incident occurred on 20-9-2000. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to Sessions Court, Chandrapur. Charge framed against accused for offences under IPC. Trial conducted, evidence recorded, accused examined under Section 313 CrPC. By judgment dated 30-6-2005, the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all accused. The State filed the present criminal appeal against acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
