Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2002 against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996, whereby eight accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 148, 326 read with 149, 326 read with 34, 302 read with 149, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 37 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The prosecution alleged that on 07.11.1994 at about 9:00-9:30 a.m., the informant Shrikant Mote and his father Haridas (deceased) were attacked by the accused with sticks, axes, and a knife due to a prior dispute over cutting of Babul trees. The informant’s father sustained 23 injuries and died. The informant and his family members also sustained injuries. The accused were charged with forming an unlawful assembly and committing murder and grievous hurt. The trial court, after examining 14 prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, acquitted all accused holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed, arguing that the testimony of the injured eyewitness (PW6) was credible and corroborated by medical evidence, and that related witnesses should not be discarded. The respondents-accused contended that the trial court had taken a plausible view; there were serious inconsistencies, particularly between the ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the time of injuries (medical evidence indicated injuries within 6 hours, whereas incident was stated to be at 9-9:30 a.m., and defence witness Dr. Chavan testified he treated the injured at 7 a.m.), delay in lodging FIR, and discrepancies in the spot panchnama. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal. The court found that the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court’s view was not perverse. The appeal had already abated against accused nos. 1, 3, and 6 due to their deaths. The court thus confirmed the acquittal of the remaining accused.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused persons for offences of murder and assault was perverse and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of the remaining respondents-accused was upheld. The appeal had already abated against accused nos. 1, 3, and 6.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- interference only if view taken by trial court is perverse
- prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt
- ocular evidence must be corroborated by medical evidence
- contradictions in time of injuries benefit accused
- evidence of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully
- delay in FIR not explained
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 27
Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2002
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, APP for the Appellant-State; Mrs. Charuta S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8
1. Narayan s/o Kisan Mote (Appeal abated), 2. Suresh s/o Narayan Mote, 3. Ramesh @ Rameshwar s/o Narayan Mote (Appeal abated), 4. Nana s/o Baburao Ingle, 5. Sheikh Taher Pasha s/o Sheikh Mahetab, 6. Goroba Krishna Thorat (Appeal abated), 7. Ganpati s/o Krishna Thorat, 8. Gayabai w/o Narayan Mote
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996, whereby the accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 148, 326 r/w 149, 326 r/w 34, 302 r/w 149, 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37 r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-State sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the respondents-accused for the said offences.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted all accused on 21.06.2002, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996, by judgment and order dated 21.06.2002, acquitted all eight accused of all charges.
Issues
Whether the trial court’s acquittal order was perverse and called for interference by the appellate court.
Whether the evidence of injured eyewitness (PW6) and other related witnesses was credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the medical evidence corroborated the ocular version of the incident, particularly regarding the time of injuries.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the discrepancies in the spot panchnama and other evidence created a reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant-State: The injured witness PW6’s testimony was trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence; conviction can be based solely on his evidence; related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground; the accused formed an unlawful assembly and caused multiple injuries leading to death of Haridas and assault on others.
Respondents-accused: Trial court took a plausible view; prosecution evidence suffers from serious infirmities and contradictions; medical evidence states injuries were within 6 hours, but PW6 and others say incident occurred at 9-9:30 a.m., and defence witness Dr. Chavan treated them at 7 a.m., indicating injuries occurred earlier; delay in FIR and unexplained stay at police station; spot panchnama does not corroborate the place of incident; testimonies are inconsistent and do not inspire confidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution case in nutshell is as under: The informant, namely, Shrikant Haridas Mote, is resident of Chincholi Mali.
On 07.11.1994 at about 8.30 a.m., the informant and his father Haridas [deceased], started carrying a plough from their cattle shed so as to return it to Rambhau Ghodke.
The informant went to the cattle shed of Arun Kale [PW5]. The informant was carried in the bullockcart to the Government Hospital, Chincholi Mali by Arun Kale [PW5].
The Head Constable Narayankar [PW10] from Kaij Police Station followed the said jeep up to Ambajogai. He recorded the statement of the informant in Ambajogai Hospital.
Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence the trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the accused with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted the respondents/accused.
Procedural History
FIR No. 151/1994 was registered at Kaij Police Station for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 302 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaij, who committed the case to Sessions. Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996 was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, who framed charges and recorded evidence. Vide judgment and order dated 21.06.2002, the trial court acquitted all accused. The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court. During pendency of appeal, accused nos. 1, 3 and 6 died and the appeal was abated against them. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 02.04.2018, upholding the acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 326, 302, 34
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37, 135
