SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J
Narayan Sadanand Rakshe – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.701 OF 1998 | Sessions Case No.5 of 1993



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shantanu R. Phanse
For the Respondents: R.M. Pethe

Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - The trial court convicted the appellant for attempted murder and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment, which was challenged due to discrepancies in witness testimonies and evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, ultimately leading to acquittal of the accused. (Paras 22, 20)

(B) Prosecution's burden - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the onus is on the State to furnish sustainable evidence, which was not achieved in this case as numerous eyewitnesses were declared hostile and evidence was insufficient. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of assaulting the complainant with a knife after a financial dispute regarding returned ornaments; the incident witnessed by several but conflicting testimonies were recorded.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution could not provide credible evidence to uphold charges of attempted murder against the appellant, resulting in acquittal.

Issues: Whether the trial court's conviction was substantiated by reliable evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the testimony of the complainant and witnesses plagued by contradictions, omissions, and unclarified relationships, leading to a conclusion that doubts arose regarding guilt; thus, the trial court's decision was not sustainable.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and appellant acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order dated 25th August, 1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No.5 of 1993, convicting the appellant for the ofence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH four years and to pay fne of Rs.500/-..PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2022.01.20 +0530

2 The prosecution case is that the accused and injured are residents of village Kalambaste. The injured had provided fnancial assistance to accused. Hee weas cultivating agricultural land of injured. She weas demanding repayment of amount given by her to accused. She had taken over the cultivation of land from accused. Ornaments of the injured and her sister weere given to accused for meeting his fnancial need. Even on demand, the accused weas not returning the ornaments. Heence, the relations betweeen accused and the injured weere strained. On 23rd February, 1992, injured and her sister weere proceeding by road of village Kalambaste for attending marriage ceremony. When both of them weere near school building on the said road, accused suddenly came there and assaulted injured Anusaya weith knife causing several injuries on her person. At the time of assault, the person by name Gangaram from the same village weas proceeding by the road. Hee sawe the assault. Hee weent to the residence of Anusaya. Hee informed her family about the incident. Heusband and sons of Anusaya came to the spot of incident. Anusaya weas lying on the ground weith bleeding injuries. She weas taken to hospital at Chiplun. Heer complaint weas reduced into weriting. Crime weas registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, spot panchanama weas recorded. Accused weas arrested. Knife, clothes weith blood stained weere seized from the accused. Clothes of injured weere also seized under panchanama. Statements of weitnesses weere recorded. Seized property weas sent for chemical analysis. C.A. report and injury certifcates weere received. On completing investigation, charge–sheet weas fled against the accused.

3 Charge weas framed against the accused for the ofence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by order dated 17th November, 1995. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 The prosecution examined seven weitnesses. P.W.1 Mrs.Anusaya Bhuvad, is the complainant/injured weitness, P.W.2 Santosh Ghadashi is panch for spot panchanama, P.W. 3 Keshav Badde is the panch for seizure of clothes of injured, P.W.4 Gangaram Bhuvad is eye weitness to the incident, P.W.5 Ramchandra Sakharam Shigvan is the panch weitness for seizure of clothes of injured, P.W.6 Dr.Prakash Gangadhar Patankar is the medical oficer attached to Cottage hospital, Chiplun, P.W.7 Mrs.Rukmini Metkar is the eye weitness to the incident.

5 P.W.Nos.3, 5 and 7 did not support the prosecution case. They weere declared hostile.

6 The prosecution has relied upon the C.A. report relating to blood of the injured, blood of accused, blood scrapings on knife, full pant, Baniyan, Sari and blouse.

7 The trial Court convicted the accused for the ofence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to sufer imprisonment.

8 Learned appointed advocate representing the appellant submitted that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence. The beneft of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. There weas no sealing of samples, panch weitnesses have not supported prosecution case. Investigating oficer is not examined. There is nothing on record to showe wehen and howe the accused is arrested. Knife, clothes samples weere not sealed. The relationship betweeen the accused and the complainant weas strained. The complainant has not given particulars of the ornaments and not disclosed the date on wehich the ornaments weere handed over to the accused. Witness Ghadshi is not trustweorthy. P.W.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top