Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 917
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT PANAJI BENCH
M.S. Sonak, M.S. Jawalkar, JJ.
State Of Goa - Appellant
Versus
Pavel Neuhausl - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2017
Decided On : 21-10-2020
Pravin Faldessai, Advocate, Sahil Sardessai, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of appeal against acquittal, the double presumption in favor of the accused, and the requirement for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Murder - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302 - [Acquittal] - [Murder] - [IPC Section 302] - The court acquitted the accused of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the limited scope of appeal against acquittal and the lack of substantial evidence to interfere with the plausible view taken by the trial court. The court emphasized the double presumption in favor of the accused and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The Prosecution alleged that the Accused murdered his room partner by stabbing her on the neck and breast. The Accused filed a complaint claiming that he was assaulted by two persons and forcibly taken away from the crime scene. The Prosecution failed to carry out a serious investigation into the Accused's complaint, and discrepancies in the timing of the murder and the Accused's presence at different locations cast doubt on the Prosecution's version.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted discrepancies in the evidence, including the timing of the murder, the Accused's presence at different locations, and the recovery panchanamas. The court concluded that the Prosecution did not prove the involvement of the accused in the offence of murder.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to convict the Accused of murder, the discrepancies in the Prosecution's version, and the failure to carry out a serious investigation into the Accused's complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of appeal against acquittal, the double presumption in favor of the accused, and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. The court also highlighted the importance of evaluating circumstantial evidence and the requirement for the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Appeal, upholding the acquittal of the Accused. The court emphasized that there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order.
JUDGMENT
M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Pravin Faldessai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant-State and Mr. Sahil Sardessai, for the Respondent-Accused.
2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 15th March, 2017, made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Sessions Case No.67/2013, acquitting the Respondent-Accused of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The case of the Prosecution was that the Accused, between 09.00 hours on 6/8/2013 and 02.55 hours on 7/8/2013, at Room No.2, Green Leaf House, Umtta Vaddo, Calangute, with an intention to cause death of his room partner Ms. Markita Horka, Czech National, stabbed her on the neck and breast, thereby murdering her.
4. The Accused refused to plead guilty to the charge as framed and claimed to be tried, and the trial ensued. The Prosecution examined 19 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after assessing the evidence on record, has acquitted the Accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Hence, this Appeal by the State.
5. Mr. Faldessai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perverse inasmuch as there was sufficient evidence on record to convict the Accused and the Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt, the complicity of the Accused in the murder of Ms. Markita Horka.
6. Mr. Faldessai points out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to separate chaff from the grains and gave undue importance to the minor discrepancies, in order to give benefit of doubt to the Accused. Mr. Faldessai submits that in this case, the evidence in the form of recovery of the incriminating articles in pursuance of the statements made by the Accused, as well as the medical evidence, establish the complicity of the Accused in the crime. He submits that additionally the complaint made by the Accused was investigated and found to be false. He submits that filing of a false complaint in order to deflect the blame of murder upon himself, is an additional circumstance incriminating the Accused. He, however, submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has unduly excluded this circumstance and, therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge warrants interference. For all these reasons, Mr. Faldessai submits that this Appeal may be allowed and the Accused be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
7. Mr. Sahil Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the Accused defends the impugned Judgment and Order based upon the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that the circumstances were not proved by the Prosecution and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has quite correctly acquitted the Accused of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He points out that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is imminently a plausible view and, therefore, the same may not be interfered with in this Appeal.
8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
9. At the very outset, we must note that the scope of an appeal against acquittal is quite limited. Therefore, as long as the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a plausible view, there is no question of any interference with the acquittal recorded. In Chandrappa and ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the contours of interference in an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph 42 of this decision, reads as follows :
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
