The High Court considered a leave to appeal by the State against an acquittal of accused persons charged under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC. The Court found the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt regarding witness identification and discrepancies in the prosecution case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2008
[ Leave to Appeal ]
IN
APPEAL NO. OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
(Ori.Complainant)
Vs.
Nityanand @ Nitu Ganpat Yadav
and Ors. ..Respondents
(Ori.Accused Nos.1 to4)
....
Ms.S.D.Shinde APP for Applicant-State
....
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATE: APRIL 3, 2008
P.C.:
1. The State of Maharshtra has preferred this
leave to appeal against the judgment and order
dated 23rd October, 2007 passed by the learned 6th
Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Bombay in
Sessions Case No. 551 of 2006.
2. By the said judgment and order, the learned
Judge acquitted the Respondents-original accused of
-2-
the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
3. We have heard the learned APP for the
Applicant-State. We have perused the judgment and
order passed by the learned Judge and we have also
perused the entire evidence in this case produced
by the learned APP.
4. It is the prosecution case that the Respondents
assaulted Sriniwas @ Sinnu (deceased) as well as
P.W.1 Sadashiv Bhima, P.W.9 Rajesh Poojari and
P.W.13 Vishal Mahadik. As per the prosecution
case, three witnesses were injured in the incident
i.e. P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.13. All the three
witnesses went to the hospital, however, history
given by them in the hospital is "assault by
unknown persons". Witnesses claimed that the
accused persons were known to them. In such case,
if the Respondents had actually assaulted the
deceased as well as these witnesses, these
witnesses would have named the Respondents and
would not have stated that they were assaulted by
unknown persons. The fact that the witnesses have
stated that they were assaulted by unknown persons
-3-
is found in the EPR Register (Exhibits 48 to 50)
maintained in the hospital.
5. There is major discrepancy as far as the scene
of offence is concerned. The place of incident
appears to have changed from time to time. As per
the complainant P.W.13 Vishal, the incident took
place infront of the house of one Sandip Gupta.
However, as per the evidence of P.W.1 Sadashiv, the
incident occurred by the side of the house of
Sandip Gupta. As per the evidence of P.W.9 Rajesh,
the incident occurred on the road in between
Pratikshanagar and Shastrinagar, however, as per
the spot panchnama, the incident occurred in Chawl
No.C-14 infront of House No.101. However, it has
been brought on record that there is no Room No.101
infront of that Chawl. The Voters List placed on
record shows that Room No.101 is located only in
Chawl No.C-11. From this, it is clear that the
incident did not occur in front of Chawl C-14. The
discrepancy in the scene of the incident, renders
the version of the three eye witnesses doubtful.
Moreover, there does not appear any proximate
motive for the incident to take place. The
prosecution case in respect of motive is that there
-4-
was some minor quarrel about 3 to 4 months prior to
the incident. That quarrel was between accused
persons and P.W.13 Vishal Mahadik. It is pertinent
to note that it is not the prosecution case that
the accused persons had any enmity or grudge
against P.W.1 Sadashiv and P.W.9 Rajesh. Hence,
there is no scope to presume that the incident had
taken place due to inimical terms between the
injured persons and the accused. Lastly, it is the
prosecution case that injuries were caused by stone
by Respondent no.1 and by others with bottle. The
stone by which witnesses and deceased were
assaulted, is very heavy and in such case, the
injuries are not consistent with the assault by the
said stone. Looking to all these facts, the
learned Sessions Judge acquitted the
Respondents-accused.
6. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of
the opinion that the view taken by the learned
Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view.
Hence, no interference is called for. Application
for leave to file appeal is rejected.
-5-
[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Judge's acquittal of accused facing charges under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC.
Whether the prosecution evidence regarding the scene of offence and the nature of injuries creates a prima facie case warranting an appeal amendment.
The State of Maharashtra
Nityanand @ Nitu Ganpat Yadav
F.I. Rebollo
V.K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court