Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. Shriram, J.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Bhanudas Nivrutti Lande - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.540 of 2004
Decided On : 21-02-2020
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State - Appellant, for the Appellant; Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir for respondent, for the Respondent
The prosecution must establish the elements of mischief under Section 425 to convict a person under Section 429 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Section 429 - Mischief by killing or maiming cattle - IPC 429 - Summary: The court acquitted the accused of offences punishable under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had the intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the animals by poisoning them with excessive pesticide. The court emphasized that the ingredients of mischief under Section 425 must be established for convicting the accused under Section 429, and since the prosecution failed to prove these elements, the appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged an order acquitting the accused of offences under Section 429 of the IPC for poisoning and killing bullocks by spraying excessive pesticide on the grass they consumed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had the intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the animals, and highlighted various points raised by the Trial Court for passing its order of acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved that the accused intentionally poisoned the animals with excessive pesticide, leading to their death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the ingredients of mischief under Section 425 must be established for convicting the accused under Section 429, and since the prosecution failed to prove these elements, the appeal was dismissed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's order of acquittal.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 17 th December 2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khed, acquitting respondent (accused) of offences punishable under Section 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees. ) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. It is prosecutions case that on 22 nd August 2000, Ramdas Baban Lande (PW-4) cut grass standing over bund of Gat No.359 and brought it home. Half of the grass was fed to the animals including bullocks Babdya, Subhanya and Tomboy. At about 9.00 p.m., complainant (PW-1) - Balasaheb Bandu Lande, went inside the cattle shed and found four bullocks were shivering. Even Tomboy, which I am told was the name of a horse, also was shivering and none of them could stand on their legs. PW-1 immediately told PW-5 - Sitaram Bandu Lande to call veterinary doctor. PW-5 went and brought veterinary doctor Dr. Ladkat, who after examining the bullocks, opined that they were suffering from poisoning. Thereafter, PW-1 made enquiry and found his nephew (PW-4) had brought grass standing over bund of Gat No.359. Abutting that, there was a crop of brinjal on which accused had sprayed pesticide two or three days earlier. According to prosecution, accused has sprayed excessive quantity of pesticide even on the grass standing over the bund which grass came to be cut by Ramdas (PW-4) and provided to the animals. Two of the bullocks Babdya and Subhanya died and consequently, PW-1 suffered loss of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, PW-1 lodged a complaint on 23 rd August 2000. Police took cognizance of the same and commenced investigation.
3. PW-7, the Investigating Officer - Kisan Baban Bhogade, prepared panchnama of the spot from where grass was cut and also of the spot, i.e., cattle shed, where bullocks have died. PW-7 also seized bottles of pesticide from accused and entered into correspondence with the veterinarian. Thereafter, PW-6, Medical Officer, Dr. Vasant Ingale, conducted postmortem on the two bullocks. PW-7 then sent materials collected by PW-6 of the bullocks and bottles seized under panchnama to Chemical Analyzer Office. On completion of investigation, PW-7 filed chargesheet in Court and later on, after receipt of chemical analyzers report, PW-7 submitted the same to the Court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the defence is of total denial and that he was being falsely implicated on account of some old disputes.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses, viz., Balu Bandu Lande, complainant as PW-1; Kaluram Bhiku Daundkar, complainants sisters husband as PW-2; Gokul Pandharinath Daundkar, panch witness for spot panchnama and seizure panchnama as PW-3; Ramdas Baban Lande, nephew of complainant as PW-4; Sitaram Bandu Lande, brother of complainant as PW-5; Dr. Vasant Gangaram Ingale, Medical Officer (veterinary doctor) as PW-6; and Kisan Baban Bhogade, Investigating Officer as PW-7.
5. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 has culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under:
72. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court''s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court''s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court''s decision. T
