High Court dismissed the State's Criminal Application [Appa] challenging an acquittal. The trial court found discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and insufficient evidence of homicidal death.
Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused.
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.564 OF 2012 (The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Patur, District – Akola .vs. Pradip Jairam Bakhade and one)
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.
The applicant-State, by this application, seeks leave to file appeal against acquittal for challenging the judgment of the Session Judge, Akola, dated 21.4.2012 rendered in Sessions Trial No.32/2009, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 302, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The entire prosecution case rested on the testimonies of PW1 Vimalbai , PW2 Sham and PW3 Ram. PW1 Vimalbai is the mother of deceased Ravindra. She speaks about an incident wherein accused no.1 is alleged to have assaulted deceased Ravindra with fist and kick blows. Ravindra then rushed to his house and when Vimalbai had questioned accused no.1, as to why, he had assaulted her son, accused no.1 is alleged to
2
have also slapped Vimalbai. Accused no.1, thereafter, came to the house of Vimalbai and had threatened Vimalbai that he would remove the tins of the house. Meanwhile, deceased Ravindra had returned home complaining pains and headache. Ravindra was subsequently admitted in the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries.
The prosecution had examined PW4 Dr. Shamkant Mandle, who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Ravindra. PW4 Dr. Mandle had noticed an abrasion on the nose and abrasion on the cheek. On internal examination, he had noticed haematoma 3 x 2 cm. on occipital region with brain being congested. He, therefore, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury. Admittedly no external injury can be said to have been caused but there was an internal injury i.e. haematoma. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that haematoma is an outcome of an injury caused by hard and blunt object. Obviously, since no external injury was noticed, Dr. Mandle had not referred to any external injury which was responsible for the internal injury.
The trial court recorded the finding that the
3
prosecution has failed to prove homicidal death of deceased Ravindra. In respect of the eyewitness account, the trial court came to the conclusion that in the light of the discrepant evidence of PW1 Vimalbai, PW2 Sham and PW3 Ram, no reliance at all could be placed on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly in the light of an inimical relations between the deceased and the accused. The trial court, therefore, ultimately extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused and acquitted them.
In support of the application, we have heard Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned A.P.P. for the Applicant-State and we have perused the findings recorded by the trial court. We have also perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and upon such perusal, according to us, the view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulande
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the beneficial doubtful acquittal rendered by the lower trial court.
If no perversity or wrong view is noticed in the reasoning of the trial court on the prosecution evidence.
Whether the accused be ultimately acquitted after the appeal against acquittal is dismissed for no perversity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
P.V. Hardas
A.P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
