Criminal Revision allowed. The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench acquitted the accused of robbery. The court held that prosecution witnesses failed to identify the accused in court or name them in their evidence, rendering conviction unjustified.
Conviction and sentence quashed; Accused acquitted; Bail bonds cancelled.
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) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Revision Application No. 92 of 2002
versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Complainant - Paraji s/o. Ashruba Gire, Age : 64 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rumna Javala, Taluka & District : Parbhani.
.. Respondent.
Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate, for the revision applicants.
Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State.
(2) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 17TH MARCH 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
One Paraji s/o. Ambrubaba Giri had lodged a report at Gangakhed Police Station on 8-7-1984, alleging therein, that in the intervening night of 7th July 1984 and 8th July 1984, he was in his agricultural land Survey No.43, along with his servant. At about 10 p.m., four persons entered into the agricultural land. They had broken the tube light which was installed in the said field. Thereafter, they had mounted assault upon the complainant and his servant. One of the servant, namely, Allauddin, had escaped in order to rescue himself. The complainant had seen the miscreants in the moon light. He had identified them as the persons belonging to Kaikadi community and has named the present applicants in the First Information Report. He has further alleged that they had stolen battery and other articles belonging to him worth Rs. 269/-. On the basis of this report, Crime No. 95/1984 was registered against the accused under Section 394 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. They were tried. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
assaulted and abused him. There is no identification of the accused in the court / before the court. There are inherent omission elicited in the cross examination. The material omissions in the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are elicited in the cross examination.
(5) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
eye sight of PW 4 Kashinath is weak. PW 4 Kashinath has admitted in the cross examination, that the said accused had muffled their faces.
(6) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
time of trial. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the lacunae in the course of investigation shall not always entitle the accused to acquittal.
13. Perused record & proceedings.
(7) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 18th September 1997, in Criminal Appeal No. 5/1988, thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed, dated 14th January 1988, in Regular Criminal Case No. 190/1985, is hereby quashed and set aside. The applicants - accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine, if paid by the applicants, be refunded to them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
(8) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 92 of 2002
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV )
JUDGE
puranik / CRIREVN92.02
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquittal is warranted when prosecution witnesses fail to identify the accused during trial and do not name them in their substantive evidence.
Whether the failure to conduct a test identification parade and the lack of face-to-face identification vitally affects a conviction under Section 394 IPC.
Whether the principle that substantive evidence cannot be appreciated in revision prohibits granting benefit of doubt to the accused.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganpati s/o. Babu Jadhav and others
The State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
