Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.
Akil - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 2019 of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2013
Decided On : 17-10-2023
ACQUITTAL - CRIMINAL APPEAL - IPC SECTIONS 307, 34, 109, 201; ARMS ACT SECTION 25; CRPC SECTION 391 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 307, 34, 109, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to attempted murder, common intention, abetment, and causing disappearance of evidence, respectively. It also referenced Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act regarding illegal possession and use of firearms. The court interpreted these sections in the context of the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary intent and connection between the accused and the victim's injuries, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondents in a case involving an attempted murder charge after a shooting incident where the victim, Sameer Pinjari, was shot and later died from complications related to the injury. The incident stemmed from a financial dispute involving the accused and the victim's family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the intent to kill or the direct connection between the accused and the victim's eventual death, which occurred years after the incident. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to warrant a retrial or to alter the charges against the accused.
Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused was justified based on the evidence presented, and whether there was sufficient cause to frame additional charges under Section 302 of the IPC after the victim's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish a clear nexus between the accused's actions and the victim's injuries, particularly in cases involving serious charges like attempted murder. The court also highlighted that retrials should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances, and the mere passage of time or subsequent events does not automatically justify a retrial.
Final Decision: The application for retrial was rejected, and the court clarified that the pending appeals would proceed as per law.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Present Application has been filed by the original informant - appellant, who has filed Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2013 challenging the acquittal of the respondents - original accused in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2012 by the learned District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 11/9/2013 for the offence punishable under Ss. 307 read with Sec. 34, 109 read with Sec. 307, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. The said Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2013 came to be admitted by this Court by order dtd. 29/1/2014. It will not be out of place to mention here itself that even the prosecution has filed Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2014 to challenge the said acquittal. The Application for leave to appeal (Criminal Application No.6710 of 2013) filed by the State was also allowed on 29/1/2014. In short, both the Appeals came to be admitted, challenging the acquittal of the respondents - original accused, on the same date.
3. There is also one connected criminal application i.e. Criminal Application No.4811 of 2014 which challenges the order dtd. 22/1/2014 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on the application filed by original accused No.8 - Mohammad Jamal, rejecting his request to return the custody of the revolver.
4. Pending these proceedings, present Criminal Application No.2019 of 2018 has been filed by the informant- appellant for following prayers:-
<WXY>"A) The respondent No.1 be directed to place all investigation papers i.e. A.D. No. 44/2017 registered with Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusawal on the basis of death of Sameer Pinjari on 5/11/2017 in the form of additional evidence for consideration of Criminal Appeal No. 451/2013 and 61/2014.
B) To amend/alter the charge (Exh.23) framed in Sessions Case No.192/2012 and charge punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C. be framed against accused/respondent no. 2 to 9 and to pass necessary order for recording of further evidence for final consideration of Criminal Appeal."</WXY>
5. When this Application was before this Court, by order dtd. 18/9/2018, this Court had taken note of the fact that a statement was made on behalf of the applicant that due to the bullet injury sustained to the victim, he has expired and though death took place after so many years, he want to see that the record like postmortem report and certificate of cause of death is produced. Learned APP was directed to see that the Police collects the record and produce the same before this Court. Thereafter, by way of an affidavit-in-reply, affidavit of Assistant Police Inspector, Bhusawal Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal, District-Jalgaon, Shri Sudarshan Kashiram Waghmare has been filed and along with his affidavit, he has filed the copy of the inquest panchnama, application by the Police to be sent along with the dead body at the time of postmortem, postmortem report, histopathology report and final cause of death certificate. Under the said circumstance, prayer clause (A) appears to be fully addressed regarding placing all investigation papers i.e. A.D. No. 44 of 2017 registered with Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal, which was in respect of death of victim Sameer Pinjari on 5/11/2017.
6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa appearing for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Phule appearing for State and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendrra Deshmukh instructed by learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 8, in respect of prayer clause (B), above said.
7. Learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa appearing for the applicant has taken us through the charge and the evidence that was recorded by the learned trial Judge. It is to be noted that the charge was for the offence punishable under Ss. 307 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 109 read with Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 201 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 punishable under Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, it a
AI
An appellate court must not reverse an order of acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, or the original judgment is perverse. Retrial is an exceptional remedy permitted only to....
In appeals against acquittal, courts must uphold the presumption of innocence and require a high burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate perverse findings to overturn an acquittal.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to prove guilt, especially in cases of acquittal.
Re-trial should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances where the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities, or where the prosecutor or accused were prevented from tendering m....
An appellate court may not disturb a trial court's acquittal unless the latter's judgment is unreasonable or perverse, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration and consistency in dying declarations, and the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two r....
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
