Back
2008(1) Supreme 317
Supreme Court of india
G.P. Mathur & R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1097 of 2005
Decided on : 17-/01-2008
Appeal against acquittal – Principles relating to interference by High Court - While the High Court can review entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it can not interfere with acquittal by Trial Court unless there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge findings arrived by Trial court, which were basis for acquittal - High Court has to give due importance to conclusions of trial court, if they had been arrived at after proper appreciation of evidence - High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the Trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate evidence properly - If two views are reasonably possible from evidence on record, one favouring accused and one against accused, High Court is not expected to reverse acquittal merely because it would have taken view against accused had it tried the case. (Para 6)
1978 (4) SCC 371, 1988 (2) SCC 21, 1988 (2) SCC 557, 2002 (1) SCC 487, 2003 (8) SCC 180 Relied upon.
Facts of the case:-
1.Prosecution of accused persons for forming an unlawful assembly committing a riot, armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of common object, causing homicidal death of deceased and causing grievous hurt to family members of deceased - Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, acquitted accused persons – High Court on appeal held that charges against accused persons were proved and reversed finding of Acquittal.
2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court : -
The Court held that except Prosecution Witness PW12, none saw any of accused attacking deceased. An analysis of entire evidence showed that there was only one eye-witness PW12 in regard to attack on Deceased and his evidence was only of A1 attacking Deceased. There was no evidence of any of other accused assaulting deceased. In view of material inconsistencies, large gaps and prosecution’s failure to explain several relevant aspects, Trial Court after an exhaustive consideration of evidence found that evidence of PWs.12, 13 and 14 was not reliable. Except three interested witnesses who also happened to be closest relatives of deceased namely parents and brother, no one else had spoken about incident. As far as A2 to A6 were concerned, there was absolutely no reliable evidence to show that they assaulted or caused injuries to either deceased or any of his family members namely PWs.9, 12, 13 and 14. No acceptable evidence that all or any of them with common intent assaulted Deceased or his family members. Prosecution witnesses PWs. 12, 13 and 14 made an effort to falsely involve A2 to A6 in the incident. High Court was not justified in reversing acquittal by trial Court. No explanation was offered by prosecution why village crowd was furious with deceased and his family, why they threw stones at his house and who were members of village crowd. Categorical statement of Dw1 that none of accused were part of crowd\mob that threw stones at deceased’s house. Body of deceased was discovered after 8 hours of his death. Not only strange but virtually impossible to believe that body of deceased would have remained unattended and unchecked till next day morning in back ground of what had happened. Again, nobody bothered to take deceased to hospital or get him treated. Non examination of any independent witnesses and neighbours were significant omissions. Impugned judgment of High Court convicting and sentencing appellants was set aside and trial court judgment acquitting appellants was restored. Appeal allowed.
Cases referred :
1.G. B. Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978 (4) SCC 371.[Para 6]
2.Babu v. State of U.P., 1988 (2) SCC 21. [Para 6]
3.Awadhesh v. State of M.P., 1988 (2) SCC 557. [Para 6]
4.Thanedar Singh v. State of M.P., 2002 (1) SCC 487. [Para 6]
5.State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram, 2003 (8) SCC 180. [Para 6]
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court which reversed the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The trial court had found the evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, whereas the High Court had convicted them based on the same evidence (!) (!) .
The central issue involved allegations of participation by the accused in an unlawful assembly, rioting, and causing homicidal death and injuries. The prosecution's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from the family members of the deceased, who were also injured witnesses, and on alleged disclosures leading to weapon recoveries (!) (!) .
The trial court noted significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, especially the close relatives of the deceased, and found the evidence unreliable. It also emphasized the lack of independent witnesses, the suspicious delay in discovering the body, and unexplained circumstances surrounding the incident (!) (!) .
The High Court, however, believed the testimony of the close family members who were injured and relied on the evidence of the accused's alleged disclosures and weapon recoveries to establish guilt. It disregarded the trial court’s findings on the unreliability of certain witnesses and the inconsistencies in the evidence (!) (!) .
The appellate court emphasized that interference with acquittal judgments is only justified when there are strong reasons to dislodge the trial court’s findings. It reiterated the principle that if two reasonable views can be drawn from the evidence, the view favoring the accused should be accepted, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused (!) .
The court scrutinized the evidence regarding the attack on the deceased. It found that only one eyewitness (the father) provided specific details implicating certain accused, while the other witnesses did not see the attack or contradicted earlier statements. The evidence was further weakened by the fact that some witnesses' testimonies appeared to be afterthoughts or improvements, and there was a lack of corroboration from independent witnesses (!) (!) .
Several suspicious circumstances were highlighted, such as the delay in discovering the body, the unnatural conduct of the witnesses, and the absence of the accused from the scene during critical times. The conduct of the witnesses and the inconsistencies in their testimonies cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events, suggesting possible false implication of the accused due to previous enmity (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding the recovery of weapons was also discredited because the witnesses who purportedly made disclosures and led to the weapon recoveries turned hostile and denied the statements. This further undermined the prosecution’s case (!) (!) .
The evidence of injuries inflicted on the family members was inconsistent and unreliable, with different witnesses providing contradictory accounts of who caused injuries and with what weapons. The absence of independent witnesses and the inconsistent testimonies about the injuries further weakened the case against the accused (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the appellate court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It reaffirmed that the trial court’s findings, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, should be respected unless there are compelling reasons to overturn them. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused were to be released (!) (!) .
judgment
R.V. Raveendran, J. —
1.This appeal by the accused 2 to 6 is against the judgment dated 29/30.3.2005 of the Bombay High Court allowing the Criminal Appeal No.193 of 1995 filed by the State of Maharashtra and reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 30.1.1995 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.123 of 1989. For convenience, appellants 1 to 5 will be referred to as accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :
2.1)The family of Ganpat consisting of himself, his wife Putlabai and sons Shivaji, Vilas and Ananda, were residents of Kusur village. Ganpat and his sons belonged to the group of one Adhikrao Kadam and had canvassed against Sambhaji (accused no. 2) and his group in the Gram Panchayat Elections. Though A2 got elected, his group has defeated. Further Ganpat allegedly refused to transfer three Guntas of land in the village belonging to his family, as demanded by A2 Sambhaji. Consequently A2 and his supporters had a grudge against Ganpat and his family. A2 Sambhaji, as Chairman of the local co-operative society had withheld the issue of ‘no-due’ certificate to Ganpat and caused hardship to him. Prabhakar (accused no. 1 who died during the pendency of appeal) and Mohan (Accused No.4) were brothers of Sambhaji (Accused No.2). Appasaheb (Accused No.3) was the cousin, and Prahalad and Mahadev (Accused Nos. 6 and 7) were the friends of Sambhaji. Shankar (Accused No.5) was the servant of A1 Prabhakar. All the accused were also residents of the same village. There was simmering differences between the two groups.
2.2)At about 8 P.M. on 18.5.1988, Ganpat’s son Shivaji was assaulted by the accused by catching hold of him and tearing his Banian near Jotiba temple. Putlabai, mother of Shivaji, rushed from her house which was nearby and took Shivaji back home. That night at about 10 P.M, when Shivaji and other family members were inside the house, A6 Prahlad called Shivaji to come out. When Shivaji came into the courtyard in front of the house, the accused armed with sword, axes, sticks and stones assaulted Shivaji. Shivaji’s parents Ganpat and Putlabai and Ananda came out of the house, one after the other. They were also assaulted by the accused and were injured. Lastly, Vilas another son of Ganpat, came home, when the others were being attacked, and he was also assaulted by the accused. By then Adhikrao Kadam (for whom Ganpat’s family worked during the Gram Panchayat Elections) came in his Jeep. Seeing him, all the accused ran away. Adhikrao Kadam took Ganpat and his son Vilas, who were injured to Krishna Hospital at Karad where they were treated around 11.00 P.M.
2.3)On being informed about the fight in Kusur village and two injured being admitted to the hospital, the I.O. (V.G.Chougule, PSI - PW17) went to the hospital accompanied by police staff. He recorded the statement of Vilas (FIR - Ex.71) at about 1 A.M. on 19.5.1988 to the effect that when he reached home, he saw a crowd in front of his house and learnt from them that there was a dispute between A1, A2 and A3 with his father Ganpat; that when he was entering the house, A1 gave him two blows with a sword, and A2 hit him with a stick and he fell unconscious; and that he and his father were brought to the Hospital for treatment. On the basis of the said FIR, CR No.150/1988 was registered in the Karad Taluk Police Station.
2.4)Immediately thereafter, the IO went to Kusur village (around 1.30 A.M. on the morning of 19.5.1988). He did not find anyone in the house of Ganpat. The accused were also not traced. He returned to the police station around 4.30 A.M. By then Ganpat’s another son Ananda reached the police station. The IO again went back to the Kusur village with Ananda and drew spot panchanama (Ex.33), under which blood stained stick and earth smeared with blood and some blood stained stones were recovered from the place of incident. While drawing the spot panchnama, the dead body of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
