Criminal Revision Application challenging the acquittal of a co-accused in a murder case. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the Court cannot direct the prosecution to file an appeal nor can it convict in revision proceedings.
Criminal Revision Application dismissed against the acquittal of the respondent.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2007
Chootu S/o Ramchandra Khairnar
age : 30 years, Occ.: Agri.,
R/o Bangaon, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon
APPLICANT
(Ori. Informant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2.Babulal Pawlu Pardeshi,
age : 52 years, Occu.: Nil.,
R/o Bangaon, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. JalgaonRESPONDENTS
(Resp.No.2-Ori.Accused)
Mr. V.Y. Patil, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State
None for present respondent no.2
CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Reserved On : 22nd September, 2016
Pronounced On: 27th October, 2016
JUDGMENT ( PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.):
The applicant is the informant, who lodged the
First Information Report (for short, “the FIR”), dated
17th August, 2011 in respect of homicidal death of his
brother namely Sunil on 16th August, 2003 at about 8.30
crirevnapln22-2007
2
p.m. at village Bangaon, Taluka Chalisgaon, on the basis
of which Crime No. 203 of 2003 was registered against
one Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar.
2.Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar, his wife Sunderabai and
respondent No. 2 were chargesheeted for the offence
punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”, for short) for committing
murder of Sunil. Since Hiraman Pawar and respondent No.
2 were alleged to have been absconded, their names were
shown in the chargesheet as absconded persons.
Sunderabai alone was available when the chargesheet was
filed. After committal of the case, Sessions Case No.
171 of 2004 came to be instituted. The trial proceeded
against Sunderabai alone and she came to be acquitted
vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2004.
3.A separate chargesheet was filed against
respondent No. 2 on the basis of which Sessions Case No.
91/2005 came to be instituted against him. It is stated
by the applicant in paragraph No. 3 of this application
that the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon wrongly acquitted respondent No. 2 for the
offences punishable under sections 174 and 302 of the
3 crirevnapln22-2007
IPC vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 2006 in
Sessions Case No. 91 of 2005. Being aggrieved by the
said judgment and order, the applicant has come with
this revision application contending that the said
judgment is not legal, proper and correct. It has not
been delivered by appreciating the evidence properly and
correctly. There was sufficient material to convict
respondent No. 2 available on record. It is, therefore,
prayed that respondent No. 1 may be directed to prefer
an appeal against the judgment and order dated 9th
October, 2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2005 and
that the said judgment may be set aside. It is further
prayed that respondent No. 2 may be convicted for the
offences punishable under sections 174 and 302 of the
IPC. It is also prayed that the case may be remanded to
the Sessions Court for fresh trial.
4.This revision application was heard with
Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2013 that was filed by
accused Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar, who was convicted for the
offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC on the
allegations of committing murder of Sunil. After re-
appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court found
crirevnapln22-2007
4
that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient,
cogent, consistent and dependable evidence on record to
establish the guilt of the said Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar.
Therefore, he came to be acquitted. While considering
the evidence, recorded in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2012,
filed against Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar, it was noticed that
the name of respondent No. 2 was not even mentioned as a
co-accused in the FIR lodged by the present applicant.
It is only on the basis of the insistence of the present
applicant that his supplementary statement came to be
recorded on 5th June, 2004 and respondent No. 2 came to
be arrayed as a co-accused.
5.At the outset, it may be stated that the
prayers of the applicant seeking directions against
respondent No. 1 for filing appeal against acquittal of
respondent No. 2 and further seeking conviction of
respondent No. 2 in the present revisional proceedings
cannot at all be considered since they fall beyond the
ambit of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
6.We have considered the evidence of the
witnesses recorded in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2005. We
have gone through the judgment of acquittal dated
crirevnapln22-2007
5
9th October, 2006. Admittedly, the applicant was not an
eye witness to the incident. None of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution is an eye witness. Besides
respondent No. 2, Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar and Sunderabai
were stated to be in the house of respondent No.2 at the
time of the alleged incident. No motive on the part of
respondent No. 2 has been attributed and established on
the basis of which it can be said that he had any reason
to cause death of Sunil. The evidence on record was so
scanty that it was difficult to connect respondent No. 2
with the alleged offences. The learned Trial Judge has
rightly appreciated the facts of the case as well as the
evidence on record and has rightly acquitted respondent
No. 2. We do not find any reason to interfere in the
said judgment and order and order retrial of the case
against respondent No. 2. There is no substance in the
revision application. Hence, the order :-
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
npj/crirevnapln22-2007
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the acquittal of the appellant despite the applicant's prayer for conviction.
Whether the revisional petition can be used to direct the prosecution to file an appeal against an acquittal.
Chootu
The State of Maharashtra
Babulal Pawlu Pardeshi
S.S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court