1. Dispute over cricket ground space leading to death and injuries — Charges under Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 504 read with 149 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1634
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ramesh Maruti Gondhali – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5661-5676 of 2024 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 5677-5678 of 2024
Decided on : 27-02-2025
Important Points
The Court held that in cases involving vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC, evidence must be assessed with extreme caution. If the High Court's decision to acquit is based on a plausible view of the evidence and is not perverse, the Supreme Court will not interfere.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeals and Acquittals
Act Referred
BOMBAY POLICE ACT: S.135
EVIDENCE ACT: S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.302, S.307, S.324, S.325, S.504, S.149
EVIDENCE ACT: S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.302, S.307, S.324, S.325, S.504, S.149
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 504, and 149; Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Charges of murder and related offences - Evidence disbelieved due to discrepancies; High Court's acquittal upheld - The trial Court convicted 16 and acquitted 19 of 35 accused in an altercation over cricket. (Para 2, 6)
(B) Appellate Review - High Court's discretion and presumption of innocence - The appellate court should interfere only in cases of apparent perversity; here, a plausible view led to acquittal. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The informant and others were attacked by the accused during a cricket match dispute on 29.10.2008, resulting in death and injuries. The trial court's conviction of some accused was challenged by both sides.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found sufficient discrepancies in witness testimonies and did not see grounds for overturning acquittals.
Issues: Whether the testimony of related witnesses should be questioned and the credibility of the evidence against multiple accused.
Ratio Decidendi: High Court correctly held that discrepancies and hostile witnesses warranted acquittal.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Appellate Review - High Court's discretion and presumption of innocence - The appellate court should interfere only in cases of apparent perversity; here, a plausible view led to acquittal. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The informant and others were attacked by the accused during a cricket match dispute on 29.10.2008, resulting in death and injuries. The trial court's conviction of some accused was challenged by both sides.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found sufficient discrepancies in witness testimonies and did not see grounds for overturning acquittals.
Issues: Whether the testimony of related witnesses should be questioned and the credibility of the evidence against multiple accused.
Ratio Decidendi: High Court correctly held that discrepancies and hostile witnesses warranted acquittal.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant emphasizes ocular evidence and motive; Respondents argue material discrepancies between oral testimonies and medical evidence, and unreliable recoveries from open spaces. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Evidence under Section 149 IPC requires extra caution; discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence and recoveries from open spaces justify acquittal. (Para 6 )
4. Appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal unless the decision is perverse; a plausible view in favor of the accused strengthens the presumption of innocence. (Para 7 )
5. Appeals dismissed, upholding the High Court's order of acquittal. (Para 9 )
6. What level of caution should courts exercise when convicting persons under Section 149 of the IPC?
Courts must be extra cautious when convicting persons under Section 149 of the IPC, as it creates vicarious liability, especially when there are serious discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. (Para 6 )
7. How does the court view recoveries of material objects made from open spaces under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Recoveries made from open spaces may be rejected as unreliable, particularly when witnesses turn hostile, as they do not conclusively link the accused to the crime. (Para 6 )
8. What is the impact of a clear discrepancy between the statements of injured eye-witnesses and medical evidence?
When the nature of injuries attributed by eye-witnesses does not correspond with the medical officer's report or the recovered weapons, the testimony of the eye-witnesses becomes unsafe to rely upon. (Para 6 )
9. Under what circumstances will a higher court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
A higher court will be slow to interfere with an acquittal unless an apparent perversity is shown; if the lower court's view is plausible, the benefit of the doubt extends to the accused. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. In all these appeals, the appellant is the informant, namely PW-1. The private respondents were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 325, 504 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, the IPC) along with the provisions of Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT , 1951.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the complainant along with 7 others were playing cricket on 29.10.2008 - date of occurrence. The accused persons came and made an attempt to play on the very same ground. There was an altercation that ensued, as they were prevented from doing so by the deceased due to paucity of adequate space. Under rage, the accused persons, namely the private respondents before us came to the place of occurrence and allegedly committed the offence which led to the death of the informant's cousin and injuries suffered by others. In total, there are about 35 accused persons. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to acquit 19 of them and convicted 16 persons.
3. Appeals have been filed before the High Court by both sides, including the State. The High Court, by an elaborate judgment, after reassessing the evidence available on record was pleased to dismiss the appeals filed against the acquittal and allowed the appeals filed against the conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, the appellant, who is the informant, has filed the present appeals.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there are injured eye-witnesses whose evidence ought to have been placed by the High Court at a higher pedestal. The High Court has committed an error in disbelieving the recovery. The motive for the crime has been proved, as there was a prior dispute. Merely because the witnesses who have been examined are related to the deceased, is not a reason to disbelieve their testimony. The mere delay in recording the statement or reading the complaint per se cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution's version of events. Between the existence of ocular evidence and medical evidence, the former will have to be given preference. Both the Courts have not considered the evidence in its correct perspective, as there are ample materials available on record to implicate all the private respondents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that there are material discrepancies between the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which have rightly been taken note of by the High Court in its judgment. Apart from the same, the oral evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses do not concur with the nature of the alleged injuries suffered by them, as revealed by the medical report. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the recovery, particularly, in light of the witnesses turning hostile and the recoveries having been made from the open spaces. Motorcycles which were present in the scene of occurrence have not been seized and the owners have not been identified by the Investigating Officer. The weapons allegedly used to commit the offence do not tally with the nature of injuries suffered, as revealed by the medical evidence. The injuries suffered do not correspond with the statement made by the eye-witnesses. Hence, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses, especially, in the light of apparent discrepancies in the same. In such view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
6. We are dealing with a case involving Section 149 of the IPC. While convicting a person charged with the aforesaid provision, which creates a vicarious liability, the Courts will have to be extra cautions. In the instant case, about 35 persons have been charged. The High Court has rightly found that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Though the provisions governing falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus may not have a strict application to the Courts in
