Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by the original complainant, Sagarbai Bansode, challenging the acquittal of the accused, Keshav Puri, by the IVth Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. The accused was originally convicted by the IIIrd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed, under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Jaya by pushing her with his knee, causing her to fall on stony steps. The appellate court set aside the conviction, leading to the present revision. The facts, as per the prosecution, are that on 30.9.2001 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused came to the complainant's house and asked about his son Madan. He threatened the complainant and then suddenly pushed Jaya with his knee, causing her to fall and sustain fatal injuries. The complainant could not lodge a complaint immediately due to heavy rain and lodged it on 1.10.2001. The police registered a crime under Section 304 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted him. The legal issues considered were whether the appellate court's judgment was perverse and whether the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was justified. The arguments of the revision applicant emphasized that the appellate court erred in appreciating evidence, while the respondent argued that the acquittal was correct. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the appellate court's findings were not perverse. The court noted that the push was a sudden act without intention to cause death or knowledge that death was likely. The death was accidental. The court held that the revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence unless the judgment is perverse. The court dismissed the revision application, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 Part II IPC - Intention and knowledge - The prosecution alleged that the accused gave a push by knee to the deceased, who fell on stony steps and died. The trial court convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC, but the appellate court acquitted. The High Court, in revision, held that the appellate court's findings were not perverse and that the evidence did not establish any intention to cause death or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. The push was a sudden act without premeditation, and the death was accidental. The acquittal was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Revision - Scope of revisional jurisdiction against acquittal - The High Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and can be exercised only if the lower court's judgment is perverse, illegal, or improper. The appellate court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not unreasonable, hence no interference warranted. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court is perverse and liable to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction, and whether the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was justified on the facts of the case.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the IVth Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed.
Law Points
- Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
- Section 304 Part II IPC
- Intention and knowledge
- Acquittal appeal
- Revision against acquittal
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction
- Appreciation of evidence
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case
