Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R.Shriram, J.
The State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Dattatray Bajrang Choughule - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2007
Decided On : 07-05-2021
Acquittal - Indian Penal Code - Section 323, Section 325, Section 504, Section 34 - The court discussed the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal, the principles emerging from previous cases, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The court emphasized that the appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has 'very substantial and compelling reasons' for doing so. It also highlighted that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favor by the Trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal impugned an order and judgment acquitting the accused of offences punishable under Section 323, Section 325, Section 504, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was nothing palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. It stated that there is an acquittal and therefore, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused. The order of acquittal, in the court's view, cannot be interfered with.
Issues: Inconsistencies in the evidence of the eye witnesses, doubts regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant, and disputes between the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has 'very substantial and compelling reasons' for doing so. The presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favor by the Trial Court.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K.R.SHRIRAM, J. - This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 3rd September 2005 passed by the IV th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur, acquitting respondents (accused) of offences punishable under Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace ) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention ) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Learned APP in fairness submitted that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the eye witnesses.
3. PW-4, who is supposed to have been assaulted by the accused, has deposed that he sustained bleeding injuries and there were blood stains on his clothes. PW-4 has also deposed that he did not go to the police station with his clothes and the Investigating Officer (PW-8) also confirms that it was necessary to have seized those clothes. This creates a doubt as to whether PW-4 really sustained injuries as alleged.
4. PW-5, who is the wife of PW-4, states that she also sustained injuries. PW-5 has deposed that her husband, i.e., PW-4, fell down then accused no.2 Pradeep Choughule assaulted on the leg of PW-4 with a spade and accused no.2 also assaulted PW-5 on her leg with a spade and one Ajinath Pawar, Dattu Jadhav, Raghunath Pawar and Shahajan intervened. But these things are not found in the statement of PW-5 to the police.
5. In the complaint, PW-4 has stated that he was present at his vasti but in the cross examination, PW-4 states that he was not present at the vasti. The Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of other eye witnesses. Police has not recorded the statement of PW-6 under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which also deprived the prosecution of effectively cross examining PW-6. The evidence also indicates that there were disputes between PW-4 and PW-6 on the one side and the accused. PW-3 has deposed that he rushed to the spot after hearing the noise of quarrel but the evidence indicates that the distance where PW-3 was from the spot of incident was about five minutes walk away. The Trial Court, therefore, has doubted the version of PW-3 that he was present at the time of incident. Even the medical certificates has various corrections which have not been proved. Based on these factors and many other, the Trial Court acquitted the accused.
6. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. 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. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.
73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for d
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
