An appellate court should not substitute its own view for an order of acquittal if the trial court’s finding is based on a plausible view of the evidence. Interference is permitted only if findings are perverse or illegal, while respecting the double presumption of innocence of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

D.N.RAY, J.

1. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and Mr. Param R. Buch, learned advocate appearing for the opponent/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are recorded briefly as under:-

2.1 A charge-sheet came to be filed by the Mendarda Police Station against the accused persons for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 337, 504, 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”), as well as under Section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act .

2.2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.11.2001 at about 11:00 a.m., the complainant, Rambhai Parbatbhai Kodiyatar, a resident of Gadhkiya Nesh, had proceeded to the place of one Rajubhai Dairywala for the purpose of purchasing cotton seed cake (cattle feed) for his buffaloes and for settlement of outstanding milk dues. After settling the said account, he purchased approximately fifteen bags of cattle feed from the market. For the purpose of transporting the said goods, a “Chhakdo” rickshaw belonging to one Dhanabhai Khimabhai (resident of Khada Nesh) and driven by his son Natha was hired for a consideration of Rs.100/-. At about 4:30 p.m., the complainant, along with one Dhanabhai, proceeded in the said rickshaw towards Gadhkiya Nesh and reached there at around 6:00 p.m., whereafter the goods were unloaded and the agreed fare was paid.

2.3 Shortly thereafter, upon hearing a commotion near the house of one Hamirbhai, the complainant proceeded to the spot. It is alleged that at that time, an altercation was taking place between Sukabhai Punabhai and his son Hamir on one side, and Dhanabhai Khimabhai and his son Natha on the other, during which abuses were allegedly exchanged.

2.4 The complainant is stated to have intervened, whereupon Dhanabhai allegedly stated that the dispute pertained to not sending his son’s wife. It is further alleged that Dhanabhai, armed with a wooden stick, inflicted two blows on the back of the head of Hamir, causing him to fall to the ground. When Sukabhai intervened, he too was allegedly assaulted with one blow on the back and another on the right ear. It is further the case of the prosecution that Natha threw stones at both Hamir and Sukabhai.

2.5 At the relevant time, Maliben, sister of Hamir, was present, and upon the incident, other persons from the locality gathered at the spot. It is alleged that thereafter, Dhanabhai and his son fled from the scene in the rickshaw. Hamir, who had sustained injuries, was placed on a cot and efforts were made to arrange transportation. One Lakha Naranbhai brought a rickshaw, in which the injured was taken towards Mendarda. On the way, at Vaniyavav, the rickshaw driver left, and subsequently another rickshaw was arranged. The injured Hamir was then taken to the Government Hospital at Mendarda, where the Medical Officer on duty, upon examination, declared him dead.

2.6 The prosecution attributes the motive for the incident to a matrimonial dispute between the families, inasmuch as two daughters of Sukabhai were engaged to the sons of Dhanabhai. While the marriage of the elder daughter had been solemnized, the marriage of the younger daughter was pending. It is alleged that Dhanabhai had insisted that his daughter would be sent to her matrimonial home only upon completion of the second marriage, and that the present incident occurred on account of such dispute. A complaint in respect of the inc