Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No.247 of 2001, whereby all four respondents (original accused) were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from an incident on 29 July 2001, when the deceased Govind Pawar, along with the first informant Kundlik Rathod (PW1) and Seva Chavan, had gone to Paradgaon for a weekly bazaar. While returning, the four accused allegedly came running from behind and intercepted them, and accused No.3 Bhima gave a knife blow to Govind's abdomen, while others caught hold of him. Govind died on the spot. The prosecution examined PW1 as the sole eyewitness, along with other witnesses including the panch witnesses and the medical officer. The trial court disbelieved PW1's testimony due to inconsistencies regarding the presence of other witnesses and the sequence of events, and found that the evidence of other witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution case. The court also noted that the motive, based on previous enmity and a prior acquittal, was not sufficient to prove guilt. The High Court, in the appeal, considered the submissions of the APP and the defence counsel. The court observed that the trial court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The High Court noted that PW1's testimony was inconsistent and that the independent witnesses (PW2 and PW3) did not support the prosecution. The court also noted that the medical evidence did not corroborate the manner of assault as alleged. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the remaining three respondents (the fourth respondent having died during the pendency of the appeal).
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Acquittal Appeal - The State appealed against acquittal of four accused for murder under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The trial court had acquitted on grounds of unreliable testimony of sole eyewitness and lack of corroboration. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Sole Eyewitness - Corroboration - The sole eyewitness (PW1) gave inconsistent statements regarding the presence of other witnesses and the manner of assault. The High Court held that such testimony, without independent corroboration, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Motive - Sufficiency - The prosecution alleged motive due to previous enmity and a prior acquittal. The High Court held that motive alone, without reliable evidence of the incident, is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents (original accused) for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is upheld. The appeal against respondent No.4 (since deceased) is abated.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Acquittal appeal
- Circumstantial evidence
- Corroboration of testimony
- Motive
- Murder
- Reasonable doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
