Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the three respondents, who were charged with the murder of Somrayya M. Bandgar and the attempted murder of Mhalappa M. Bandgar, allegedly committed on 28.06.1995 in furtherance of common intention. The prosecution case was that the accused, due to enmity over landed property, assaulted the deceased and the injured with iron pipe, scythe, axe and other weapons, resulting in the death of Somrayya. The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur) in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1996 acquitted all accused on 23.04.1996. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 1996, and the original complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 190 of 1996. During the pendency, respondents 1 and 3 expired, leaving the appeal to survive only against respondent No.2 Shivgeni T. Bandgar. The High Court examined the evidence and found that key prosecution witnesses (PW8, PW9, PW12, PW14) gave testimony full of material contradictions and omissions. Witnesses PW8 and PW12 assigned a role of assault with scythe to respondent No.2, but PW9 and the injured PW14 did not attribute any specific overt act to him. The corroborative evidence against respondent No.2 was found to suffer from vital infirmities. Consequently, the High Court held that the view adopted by the trial court in acquitting the accused was a reasonable and probable view. Relying on the settled principle that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if the trial court's view is a possible one, the appeal and revision were dismissed. The decision favored the accused, affirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Trial Court's reasonable view - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 307 read with 34 - Evidence of prosecution witnesses (PW8, PW9, PW12, PW14) suffered from material contradictions and omissions, and no specific overt act was attributed to Respondent No.2. The trial court's acquittal was based on a reasonable and probable view of the evidence. Held that no interference is warranted in an appeal against acquittal when the view adopted by the trial court is a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court found no merits and dismissed both the appeal and the revision application, thereby confirming the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- acquittal appeal
- reasonable and probable view
- material contradictions and omissions in evidence
- absence of specific role
- benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
