Dismissed

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Pulgaon v. Vijay Bhaurao Hukare and 4 Others

Bombay HC7 Mar 2014APPA/839/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State appealed against an order of acquittal by the Sessions Judge. The High Court disagreed, holding that evidence of a hostile eyewitness was unreliable and panch witnesses turned hostile, warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal stands rejected.

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Pulgaon Vs Vijay Bhaurao Hukare and 4 Others — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

0703appa839.13.odt

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 839 OF 2013

¶5

(The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Pulgaon Vs. Vijay Bhaurao Hukare & others)

¶6

- - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the Appellant.

¶9

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND C. V. BHADANG, JJ. DATED : 7^th MARCH, 2014

¶10

The State has filed the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Special Case No.16 of 2011, decided on 30/8/2013. The respondents-accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 396 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned trial Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved

¶11

0703appa839.13.odt	2/3
	thereby, the present appeal.
	Shri Doifode, learned Additional
	Public Prosecutor submits that merely because
	the statement of an eye witness was recorded
	after 2 or 3 days, it could not have been a ground
	to discard the testimony of an eye witness, who
	had witnessed the incident. He further submits
	that the other circumstances like recovery of
	blood stained clothes, the weapon used and the
	forensic evidence in the nature of Chemical
	Analyzer's Report finding blood group of the
	deceased on the clothes and on the weapon are
	sufficient to establish that the prosecution has
	proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
	The scope to entertain an appeal
	against the acquittal is very well established. It
	has been time and again held that unless the
	finding recorded by the trial Court is found to be
	perverse or impossible, it is not permissible to
	interfere with the order of acquittal. It is equally
	settled that merely because the trial Court found
	that the two views are possible, it could not be a
	ground to interfere with the findings of acquittal.

¶12

0703appa839.13.odt	3/3
	Learned trial Judge has found that if P.W.-6 was really an eye witness then he could
	have immediately informed the police in as much
	as the police station was immediately in the
	vicinity of the spot of occurrence or to the
	relatives of the deceased. Learned trial Judge
	had an opportunity to witness the demeanor of
	the said witness. In that view of the matter,
	learned trial Judge has found that the evidence
	of the said witness was not trustworthy and
	cannot be relied upon. Insofar as the other
	recovery, etc. are concerned, most of the panch
	witnesses have turned hostile and as such no
	interference in the finding of the learned trial
	Judge is warranted.
	No case is made out for interference. The application stands rejected.
	JUDGE JUDGE

¶13

wwl

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Pulgaon v. Vijay Bhaurao Hukare and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Pulgaon v. Vijay Bhaurao Hukare and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshsing S/O Durgasing Suryawanshi and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Girad and Another

Lobha S/O Chandu Chavhan and 5 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Pusad, Yavatmal and Another

Ramesh Ramchandra @ Chandrabahn Sabhadinde and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Risod Police Station

Jitendrasingh Nainsingh Gehlot Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Dept. Mumbai and Another

Pramila Wd/O Bapu Choudhary and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Home Minister and Ors.

Amin Kha S/O Amanulla Kha (Convict NO.C-2224) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Commisioner, Amravati