The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a strong motive in murder cases and the need for reliable witness testimonies and a thorough investigation.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Jawalkar, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 21/04/2018 acquitting the accused in Sessions Case (302) No.06 of 2014 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short).

2. The case of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Court was that on 04/11/2013 between 23.00 hours to 23.30 hours, at Sun City Resort, Baga Calangute, Bardez, Goa, the accused made his father Shyam Luthria sit in his golden colour Toyota Etios car bearing no.GA-03-P-2643 and drove the same to the maintenance shed side, where the accused had some discussion with his father, and during the discussion, the accused stabbed his father Shri Shyam Luthria several times on his body, with a knife causing his instant death, and thereafter dragged his dead body and kept the same next to the maintenance shed and fled away from the scene with his Toyota Etios Car bearing no. GA-03-P- 2643 and hence, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

3. Before we proceed further it needs to be noted that the present appeal being appeal against acquittal. While deciding the same the principles laid down in Chandrappa & Ors Vs State of K (2007) 4 SCC 415 needs to be borne in mind. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that when there is appeal against acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. In the very said judgment, general principles regarding powers of an appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal laid down as under :

(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;

(3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, good and sufficient grounds, ‘very strong circumstances’, distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’. etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

Keeping in view of the above principles, we proceed to decide the matter.

4. Charge came to be framed against the accused vide Exhibit-9 on 15/09/2014 as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial proceeded further.

5. The prosecution in order to establish his case examined in all 15 witnesses. After recording evidence, statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of CrP.C.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pravin Faldessai, submitted that the learned Session