Criminal Appeal preferred by Sessions Judge against acquittal in an acid-throwing case. Court held the acquittal was possible on evidence and allowed stigma of acquittal.
Leave to file appeal refused and Criminal Application No.536 of 2012 dismissed.
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 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO.536 OF 2012
(The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola .vs.
Aliyarkha @ Allu Pahelwan and others)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders
CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2012.
By this application, the applicant-State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Ad hoc District Judge-1 and Assistant Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 17.4.2012 in Sessions Case No.23/2001, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution had alleged that the respondents-accused had thrown acid on the victim Anil Narayandas Bagadiya on 5.1.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. Undisputedly, the victim was the sole witness to the incident. Unfortunately, for the prosecution, the victim Anil Bagadiya expired during the pendency of the sessions trial. The only evidence, therefore, led by the prosecution for establishing the identity of the accused as the assailants was in the form of testimony of the Executive Magistrate, who had conducted the test
2
identification parade. The trial court obviously and rightly, according to us, chose not to place any reliance on the evidence of the Executive Magistrate in respect of the identification of the respondents-accused by the victim, as the memorandum of the test identification parade does not constitute substantive evidence in the light of the fact that the victim Anil Bagadiya had died during the pendency of the sessions trial. There was no evidence whatsoever that the respondents-accused were the assailants, who had thrown acid on the victim on 5.1.2000. The trial court, therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused and acquitted them.
We have heard Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the Applicant-State and we have perused the record and proceedings.
Upon such perusal, according to us, the evidence arrived at by the trial court are not perverse at all and the view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. Since we do not notice any perversity in the reasonings of the trial court, we dismiss this application. Accordingly, Criminal Application (APPA) No.536 of 2012 is dismissed. Leave refused.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulande
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the evidence of identification parade in a lone-witness case warrants retrial after the sole witness dies during trial.
The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola
Aliyarkha @ Allu Pahelwan and others
P.V. Hardas
A.P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
