IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
The State Of Maharashtra Through P. S. Ambhora – Appellant
Versus
Gopala Baburao Walke – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order delivered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, Tahsil Ashti, District Beed, in Regular Criminal Case No.80 of 2002, dated 13.06.2005. The respondents/accused were acquitted. It is an appeal against acquittal.
PROSECUTION’S CASE :
2. The informant Sudam Raktate (PW-1) was ploughing his agricultural land situated at village Sayedmir Loni, Tahsil, Ashti, District Beed on 27.03.2002, at about 12 noon. While ploughing, some thorny bushes were likely to cause obstacles to the bullocks eyes, which were existed on the common boundary (bandh) between his land and the land of accused/respondents. To avoid the injuries to the bullocks of the informant, he put some stones on those thorny bushes in order to bend the same. At that time accused No.1 quarreled with the informant. Other accused also came there with weapons i.e. axes, sticks and stones. They all assaulted the informant and his father. At that time, after listening the hue and cry of informant his parents and wife etc. came there to rescue him. The accused also beat them by sticks, stones and axes. The informant and his father was admitted
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; the court found the injured witnesses' evidence credible.
Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if perverse or no reasonable view possible; non-explanation of accused injuries, witness contradictions, inconsistent prosecution version justify uphold....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Sections 326 and 324, emphasizing the credibility of injured witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence despite the absence of independent corroboration.
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.