Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal appeal by the State of Maharashtra and a criminal revision application by the original complainant, Nivrutti Sale, challenging the acquittal of eight accused persons by the III Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 215 of 2001. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The prosecution case was that on 28th April 2001, at about 21:00 hours, the accused, members of the Rashtravadi Congress party, attacked Kalyan Sale and Eknath Sale due to political rivalry with Shiv Sena. Accused Kailas Pradhan allegedly stabbed Kalyan repeatedly with a knife, while other accused used sticks, fists and kicks. Kalyan died and Eknath was seriously injured. The complainant Nivrutti was also assaulted. The incident occurred near Suyog P... (text incomplete). The trial court acquitted all accused after trial, finding the evidence of the three eyewitnesses — PW1 Nivrutti, PW2 Eknath, and PW3 Dnyaneshwar — unreliable due to contradictions and omissions. The State argued that the eyewitnesses clearly implicated accused Nos. 1 and 2, and minor discrepancies should not undermine their testimony. The accused contended that the trial court took a plausible view and the weapons were recovered from accessible places with no proper sealing, raising doubt about tampering. Both sides relied on case law regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals. The High Court heard the appeal and revision together and reserved judgment on 1st March 2018, pronouncing it on 15th March 2018. The provided extract does not contain the final order.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused is justified based on the evidence on record, and whether the High Court should interfere in the acquittal order.
Law Points
- Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal
- appreciation of evidence
- minor discrepancies not fatal if core not affected
- plausible view taken by trial court should not be disturbed
- reliability of eyewitness testimony
- contradictions and omissions in evidence
- burden of proof in criminal trial
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 15
Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2003
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP; Mr. N.S. Ghanekar; Mr. M.R. Andhale
The State of Maharashtra, Through MIDC Waluj Police Station
Kailas s/o Jagannath Pradhan, Dattu s/o Jagannath Pradhan, Sominath s/o Bhanudas Pradhan, Namdeo s/o Kashinath Pradhan, Sanjay s/o Rukhmanbai Chandan (abated), Sunil s/o Uttamrao Jadhav, Prabhu s/o Rangnath Sale, Jagannath s/o Janardhan Pradhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by State and revision by complainant against acquittal of accused in a murder and attempt to murder case.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the acquittal and conviction of the accused for offences including murder, attempt to murder, and rioting.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable and full of contradictions, prompting the State and the complainant to challenge the decision.
Previous Decisions
III Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 215 of 2001, vide judgment dated 26th September 2002, acquitted all accused of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was justified given the evidence of eye witnesses and the alleged contradictions and omissions?
Whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/State argued that the evidence of the three eyewitnesses unequivocally implicated accused Nos. 1 and 2, and minor discrepancies should not lead to rejection of entire evidence; relied on Mritunjoy Biswas and other cases.
Accused/respondents contended that the trial court took a plausible view based on contradictions, omissions, and unreliable recoveries; weapon seizures were from accessible places with improper sealing; relied on Kailash Raghunath Ambekar and Tulshiram Kambale.
Revision applicant adopted State's arguments and added that his own evidence as an eyewitness and that of the injured witness PW2 were not properly appreciated, and minor contradictions cannot discard trustworthy testimony, citing Sanjay Khanderao Wadane.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: A) On 28th April, 2001, at about 21.00 hours, complainant Nivrutti was standing along with his cousin Eknath Sale...
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State invites our attention to the oral evidence of three eye witnesses... if their evidence is read in its entirety, then it unequivocally indicates that all the accused have formed unlawful assembly and committed murder of Kalyan and attempted to commit murder of Eknath.
Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-accused, relying upon the findings recorded by the trial Court, submits that plausible view has been taken by the trial Court.
He further submits that seizure of weapons at the instance of accused was from the places which were accessible to all and therefore reliance cannot be placed on seizure panchnamas.
Procedural History
Incident occurred on 28th April 2001. FIR was registered as Crime No. 66 of 2001 under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 323 IPC and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. Investigation was conducted, accused were arrested, and weapons recovered. Charge-sheet was submitted on 26th July 2001. The case was committed to Sessions Court on 6th September 2001. Trial was conducted by III Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 215 of 2001. By judgment dated 26th September 2002, the trial court acquitted all accused. State filed Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2003 and the complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 366 of 2002 challenging the acquittal. Appeal against respondent No.5 (Sanjay Chandan) abated on 5th December 2017. The High Court heard the matters together, reserved judgment on 1st March 2018, and pronounced it on 15th March 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 302, 307, 149, 143, 504, 323
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 135
