Dismissed

State of Maha v. Lilabai Sopan Pawar and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2018APEAL/310/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the State challenged the acquittal of two accused persons charged with murder and cruelty under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. The High Court examined the dying declarations and medical evidence, finding them inconclusive due to the severity of the victim's burns. Upholding the trial court's finding that the accident was caused by a burst stove, the Court dismissed the appeal

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondents were cancelled.

State of Maha Vs Lilabai Sopan Pawar and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

310.03APPEAL

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.310 OF 2003

¶6

The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.I. Topkhana
Police Station,
Ahmednagar

¶7

...APPELLANT

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1. Lilabai Sopan Pawar Age : 45 years, Occ : Service,

¶10

2. Suresh Sopan Pawar Age : 30 years, Occ : Service,

¶11

Both R/o Varad Colony,
Bhutkarwadi, Ahmednagar.

¶12

 ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

...

¶14

 Mr.S.M. Ganachari A.P.P. for Appellant - State.
 Mr. S.V. Sudrik & Mr.S.S. Jadhavar
 Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶17

 S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶18

 RESERVED ON : 1ST MARCH, 2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 15TH MARCH, 2018

¶19

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.] :

¶20

This Appeal is directed against the

¶21

310.03APPEAL

¶22

¶23

Judgment and Order dated 7th January, 2003 passed

¶24

by the IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,

¶25

Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2001,

¶26

thereby acquitting both the accused i.e.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with
section 34 of the the Indian Penal Code (for short
"I.P. Code").

¶27

2.The prosecution case, in brief, is as

¶28

under:-

¶29

A)Smt. Chadrakala Devidas Kale (PW-1)

¶30

resides at Kolhapur. Deceased Pratibha was the
daughter of PW-1 – Chandrakala and deceased

¶31

Devidas Kale, who died prior to the marriage of
Pratibha. Accused - Suresh is the only son of

¶32

accused Lilabai. His father also died during his
child-hood. Both accused Lilabai and Suresh are in
service and also own house in Butkarwadi,
Ahmednagar.

¶33

310.03APPEAL

¶34

¶35

B)It is the case of the prosecution that,

¶36

the marriage of Pratibha (now deceased) and Suresh
Pawar was solemnized, and during the said marriage
dowry was also paid. After marriage, Pratibha went
for cohabitation with accused. During first year
of the marriage, there was proper cohabitation
between the spouse. Thereafter, both the accused
started illtreating Pratibha thereby making demand
of Rs.15,000/- from her mother so as to purchase
motorcycle. Pratibha used to tell about the said
illtreatment to Chandrakala (PW-1) whenever, there
was telephonic conversation between them, and when

¶37

Pratibha used to visit her parent's house. Prior
to one year of the alleged incident, deceased
Pratibha had been to her mother's house. At that
time she told her mother about the demand made by
the accused of Rs.15,000/- and on refusal an
illtreatment meted out to her, at the hands of the
accused persons. Pratibha had also told
Chandrakala (PW-1) that, due to non-fulfillment of
demand of Rs.15,000/-, both the accused had caused
burn injuries on her back. Chandrakala (PW-1) had

¶38

310.03APPEAL

¶39

¶40

seen those burns. Pratibha was given treatment in
the hospital. Thereafter, Chandrakala (PW-1), her
brother Bhagchand, brother-in-law Ankush Dahikar,
her elder son Sagar brought Pratibha to the house
of accused persons, and they requested the accused
not to give illtreatment to her and left her for
cohabitation.

¶41

C)It is the case of the prosecution that,

¶42

on 8th January, 2001 at about 21 to 21.30 hours,

¶43

after taking sup, both accused sprinkled kerosene
on the person of Pratibha and set her on fire when

¶44

she was in the kitchen room. Pratibha shouted for
help and the neighbourers, viz., Ramesh Anant
Deshpande (PW-8) and one Shabbir Karimoddin rushed
to the spot. They saw that, both accused were
extinguishing the fire on the person of Pratibha

¶45

by throwing water. Accused Suresh during that task
had also received the burn injuries to his left

¶46

hand, mouth, legs etc. With the help of Ramesh
(PW-8), both accused brought Pratibha to Civil
Hospital, Ahmednagar by rickshaw.

¶47

310.03APPEAL

¶48

¶49

D)It is the case of the prosecution that,
on 8th January, 2001, at about 10.00 p.m. deceased
Pratibha was admitted in Civil Hospital, and
immediately Dr. Shri Manoj Bapurao Ghuge, Chief
Medical Officer had given treatment. When deceased
Pratibha was admitted in the hospital, he recorded
the history and mentioned in it that, Pratibha
received 98% burn injuries.

¶50

E)It is the case of the prosecution that,
the Head Constable Shri Shiwaji Natha Sathe (PW-4)
was on duty in Civil Hospital on 8th January, 2001.
During that period, at about 10.30 p.m., he gave
requisition to Dr. Shri Ghuge for his opinion, so
as to know as to whether Pratibha was physically
and mentally fit to give statement or not.
Pratibha was in semi-conscious condition,
therefore, her statement was not recorded.
Immediately, on intimation given to Topkhana
Police Station, about the admission of Pratibha in

¶51

the Civil Hospital, the P.S.O. on duty informed to

¶52

310.03APPEAL

¶53

¶54

Shri Maruti Sambhaji Sadaphule(PW-10), Assistant
Police Inspector of Tophkhana Police Station, and

¶55

he immediately went to Civil Hospital, and gave
directions to Shri Sathe, to record the dying
declaration of Pratibha through the Magistrate.

¶56

F)It is the case of the prosecution that,

¶57

on the next day early in the morning, Shri
Sadaphule (PW-10) again went to the Civil
Hospital. Accused Lilabai was present near
Pratibha. Shri Sadaphule and accused Lilabai went

¶58

to the house of accused persons, situate at

¶59

Bhutkarwadi, Ahmednagar. In presence of Vijay
Keshavrao Jagtap (PW-7) and other panch Sanjay
Pralhad Dangade and accused Lilabai, Shri
Sadaphule prepared the spot panchanama. He also
noticed in Kitchen room one tin of 5 liters

¶60

kerosene, having one liter kerosene, half burnt

¶61

pieces of Sari, Petticoat, Match stick box, one

¶62

used match stick, one white coloured burnt

¶63

paijama. He seized the above articles in presence

¶64

of above panchas as per procedure and drawn spot

¶65

310.03APPEAL

¶66

¶67

panchanama in between 7 a.m. to 7.45 a.m.

¶68

G)It is the case of the prosecution that,
in the night of 8th January, 2001, the brother-in-
law of Chandrakala informed her that, Pratibha was
admittedinCivilHospital,Ahmednagar.
Chandrakala (PW-1) with her elder son Sagar came
to Pune. Along with elder brother of PW-1, Shri
Bhagchand, they came to Ahmednagar at about 9 to
10 a.m. They directly went to Civil Hospital,
Ahmednagar and noticed pitiable condition of
Pratibha, who was not in a position to speak.
After one hour of their arrival, Pratibha told
Chandrakala that both accused poured kerosene on
her person and set her on fire.

¶69

H)It is the case of the prosecution that,
Pratibha also disclosed above fact to her paternal
uncle Shri Bhagchand during noon time. By that
time, Shri Sathe, P.H.C. had given requisition to
the Special Judicial Magistrate- Shri Ramchandra

¶70

Ganpat Dimle (PW-5). The Special Judicial

¶71

310.03APPEAL

¶72

¶73

Magistrateimmediatelyafterreceiptof
requisition at about 4.35 p.m. came to Civil
Hospital and contacted Shri Sathe and thereafter
approached to C.M.O. Dr. Kalyan Gulabrao Bhosale
(PW-9) and requested him to examine Pratibha and
to give opinion, whether she was in a position to
give statement. Dr. Shri Bhosale examined Pratibha
and opined in writing that, Pratibha was conscious

¶74

and able to give statement. Thereafter, in
presence of Dr. Shri Bhosale, Shri Dimale recorded
the dying declaration of Pratibha. Thereafter
again Dr. Bhosale examined Pratibha. Then
Shri Dimale handed over the dying declaration to
Head constable Shri Sathe for further action.

¶75

I)It is the case of the prosecution that,
Shri Sathe with his covering letter, immediately
forwarded the said dying declaration to Topkhana
Police Station, Ahmednagar. The P.S.O. of Topkhana

¶76

Police Station, on the basis of said dying
declaration, registered the Crime No.I-5/2001
under sections 307, 498-A read with 34 of the

¶77

310.03APPEAL

¶78

¶79

Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the investigation
was handed over to Shri Sadafule, Assistant
Commissioner.Thereafter,ShriSadaphule
immediately went to Civil Hospital and recorded
the statement of Pratibha at about 6 to 6.30 p.m.

¶80

Then he recorded the statements of witnesses. On
10th January, 2001 at 13 hours, he arrested accused
Lilabai, who produced her Sari and a shirt in
presence of Shri Vijay Jagtap. On 10th January,
2001, at about 23 hours deceased Pratibha
succumbed to the injuries. On 11th January, 2001 in
presence of Shri Vishnu Waman Pofale, Vishnu
Baburao Dhole and Smt. Varsha Vishnu Pofale, he
prepared the inquest panchanama and sent the dead
body for post-mortem. Dr. Smt. Darshana Dashrath
Baravkar(PW-6) conducted autopsy. Thereafter, the
dead body was handed over to Smt. Chandrakala and
her relatives. Last rituals of Pratibha were
performed at Jamkhed.

¶81

J)Accused - Suresh was admitted as an
indoor patient and was discharged from the

¶82

310.03APPEAL

¶83

¶84

hospital on 29th January, 2001. Shri Sadaphule
handed over further investigation of the Crime to
P.S.I. Shri Devidas Raghunath Bhoj (PW-3). Shri
Bhoj on 8th March, 2001 sent the muddemal articles
to C.A. Aurangabad for examination with report. He
accordingly submitted the charge-sheet against the
accused persons. The Chief Judicial Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶85

3.A charge was framed by the IInd Adhoc

¶86

Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar against the
accused persons, to which accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of
the accused was of total denial. The defence of
the accused as per their statements recorded under
section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
written statement filed by them is that, they
never demanded money for purchasing the
motorcycle. Accused – Suresh is already possessing
motorcycle since before the marriage. Both accused
are serving and therefore, their financial
condition is sound. They never asked Pratibha to

¶87

310.03APPEAL

¶88

¶89

bring any amount. On the contrary, married life of
Pratibha and Suresh was happy. Through the said
wedlock, Pratibha delivered a son namely Akash. On
the day of incident, as the gas cylinder was
empty, Pratibha ignited the kerosene stove for
heating the milk for their son Akash. There was
burst of stove and during that incident, Pratibha
caught fire and received burn injuries. Both
accused tried to extinguish the fire by throwing
water on the person of Pratibha. In the said
process, accused Suresh also received burn
injuries to his left hand and face and his pijama

¶90

also caught fire. Both the accused with the help
of neighbourers took Pratibha to the Civil
Hospital and admitted her for treatment.

¶91

4.After recording the evidence and

¶92

conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court
acquitted the accused i.e. Respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶93

from the offences with which they were charged, as
stated herein above in Para-1 of the Judgment.
Hence this Appeal.

¶94

310.03APPEAL

¶95

¶96

5.Shri S.M. Ganachari, learned A.P.P.

¶97

appearing for the State submits that, the
prosecution case rests upon the two written dying
declarations and oral dying declaration made by

¶98

Pratibha. He invites our attention to the contents
of the dying declaration recorded by the Special
Judicial Magistrate, and submits that, Pratibha
(now deceased) stated in her dying declaration

¶99

that, the husband and mother-in-law poured

¶100

kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. They
were harassing her since no amount of dowry was

¶101

given to them. The husband is serving in Income

¶102

Tax Department. Mother-in-law always used to
quarrel with her. The husband tried to extinguish
the fire. People from the said locality gathered
on the spot and thereafter she was taken to

¶103

Hospital. It is submitted that, the said dying
declaration has been proved by the prosecution

¶104

through Special Judicial Magistrate and Medical
Officer, which inspires full confidence. He
further submits that, there is another dying

¶105

310.03APPEAL

¶106

¶107

declaration recorded by the Police Officer at
Exhibit -50, which also inspires confidence. Apart
from the said two dying declarations, Pratibha had
given oral dying declaration to her mother, which

¶108

lends corroboration to two written dying
declarations. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the
Respondent – State, by relying upon the notes of
evidence, submits that, the appeal deserves to be
allowed.

¶109

6.On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – original
accused, submits that, both the accused at the
relevant time were in the employment and earning
more than Rs.12,000/- per month, and therefore,
the allegations of alleged demand of Rs.15,000/-
is not sustainable. It is submitted that, the
father of Pratibha expired before her marriage,
therefore, the question of demand of Rs.15,000/-

¶110

would not arise. It is submitted that, due to

¶111

burst of stove said Pratibha caught fire, and
accused no.2 had tried to extinguish the fire and

¶112

310.03APPEAL

¶113

¶114

in said process he also sustained 10% burns. The
prosecution did not bring on record the injury
certificate of injuries sustained by accused no.2.
It is submitted that, while narrating the history

¶115

with the Medical Officer, Pratibha told the
Medical Officer that, she sustained the burn
injuries due to burst of stove. Immediate
neighbour residing in the said vicinity viz.,
Ramesh, immediately arrived at the spot and saw
that, both the accused were extinguishing the fire

¶116

and the accused were not responsible for such
burns to Pratibha. It is submitted that, the
investigation was carried out in faulty manner.

¶117

The Investigating Officer intentionally did not
bring on record, the factual position about the
recovery of stove from the house of the accused.

¶118

The fact that the injury certificate of the

¶119

accused - Suresh was not brought on record,
clearly shows that, the investigation was

¶120

conducted in a biased and faulty manner.
Therefore, relying upon the findings recorded by
the trial Court, learned counsel appearing for the

¶121

310.03APPEAL

¶122

¶123

Respondents, submits that the trial Court has
taken a possible view, and therefore, the order of
acquittal needs no interference.

¶124

7.Heard learned A.P.P. appearing for the

¶125

State and learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - accused Nos.1 and 2, at
length. With their able assistance, we have
carefully perused the entire notes of evidence so
as to find out whether the findings recorded by
the trial Court are in consonance with the
evidence brought on record or there is perversity.

¶126

8.Upon careful perusal of the evidence of
mother of Pratibha and other relatives, it is
tried to be suggested that, on account of unlawful
demand of Rs.15,000/- and on an inability to pay

¶127

such amount by the mother of Pratibha, the accused
have poured kerosene on the person of Pratibha and
set her ablaze. Admittedly, accused no.1 was
serving as a peon and was getting Rs.5,000/- per
month and accused no.2 was also serving as a

¶128

310.03APPEAL

¶129

¶130

Stenographer in Income Tax Department and earning
Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, the
income of the accused at the relevant time was
more than Rs.12,000/- per month. On the other
hand, it has come on record that, the father of
Pratibha was not alive at the time of marriage,
and if the financial position of the accused is
kept in view, the possibility of such unlawful
demand of Rs.15,000/-, which has not been proved
by the prosecution, is ruled out.

¶131

9.Upon careful perusal of the dying

¶132

declaration at Exhibit – 36 recorded by the
Special Judicial Magistrate, it is stated that,
the husband and mother-in-law of Pratibha poured

¶133

kerosene on her person. However, it is not stated
in the said dying declaration that, as to who has

¶134

ignited the matchstick and set her ablaze. It is
also stated that, there is child of two and half
years. The husband was working in the Income Tax
Department. It has also stated in the dying
declaration that the husband tried to extinguish

¶135

310.03APPEAL

¶136

¶137

the fire. Neighbours arrived at the spot. Her

¶138

mental condition was not fit, and therefore, she
could not tell anything more. Upon perusal of the
evidence of the Medical Officer, it appears that,
Pratibha sustained 98% burn injuries and she died
due to said 98% superficial to deep injuries. It
further appears that the right upper limb and also
left upper limb were burnt 9% respectively. Upon
perusal of the Medical evidence it appears that,
there was 100% burns to fingers, and therefore, it
is difficult to believe the prosecution case that,
Pratibha was able to give the thumb impression.

¶139

10.When Pratibha was taken to the hospital,
she stated that, she received the said burn
injuries due to burst of stove. At this juncture,
it is also relevant to refer to the evidence of
Ramesh Anant Deshpande (PW-8). In his examination-
in-chief, he stated that, he is residing in Varad
Colony opposite to Shabbir Kamroddin. He knew both
the accused. Both accused are residing opposite to
his house. He was knowing Pratibha Pawar. The

¶140

310.03APPEAL

¶141

¶142

incident took place on 9th January, 2001 at about 9
to 9.30 p.m. He did not recollect the exact date
of the incident. He was at home, after taking sup
he was watching the T.V. He heard the shouting
from the house of accused. Therefore, he came out

¶143

of the house and saw that, there was flame out of
the house of the accused. He rushed for the help.
Shabbir Kamroddin also rushed for help. He saw
that Pratibha was under flames. He admitted
Pratibha to Civil Hospital. Pratibha was now no
more. He cannot tell how many days after the
incident, Pratibha died. This witness, in his

¶144

cross examination stated that, when he went there,
both accused were extinguishing the fire on the

¶145

person of Pratibha with the help of water. The
accused persons had already extinguished the fire
on the person of Pratibha, and therefore, question
of extinguishing the fire by him does not arise.
When he went in the house at that time, on the
kitchen platform, there was a stove. The stove was
lying on the floor and it was burning. Accused -
Suresh had also received burn injuries on his face

¶146

310.03APPEAL

¶147

¶148

and hand. Both accused, he himself and Shabbir
Kamroddin took Pratibha to the hospital in a
rickshaw. He made enquiry with Pratibha and she
told him that, stove was burst and due to which
she caught fire.

¶149

11.It is clear from reading evidence of
Ramesh (PW-8) in its entirety that, he immediately
went to the house of the accused and saw that,
there were flames out of house of the accused and
Pratibha was under flames. He admitted Pratibha to
Civil Hospital. He stated that, accused were
trying to extinguish the fire on the person of
Pratibha with the help of water. He further stated
that, when he went to the house of the accused, he

¶150

saw that, the stove was lying on the floor in
burst condition and Pratibha was under flames. He
saw that, both the accused were extinguishing the
fire on the person of Pratibha with the help of

¶151

water. Both the accused were also accompanied
Pratibha in the hospital. When this witness made
enquiry with Pratibha, she told him that, stove

¶152

310.03APPEAL

¶153

¶154

was burst and due to which she caught fire.

¶155

12.We have carefully perused the dying

¶156

declaration at Exhibit-50 recorded by Shri
Sadaphule, Police Officer (PW-10). The contents of

¶157

the said dying declaration are almost similar to
that of the dying declaration at Exhibit-36
recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate.
Therefore, the trial Court has rightly discarded
the said dying declaration by recording the reason

¶158

that, it is a human tendency that one person
cannot reproduce same words after a gap of even

¶159

some minutes. Therefore, we are of the considered
view that, both the dying declarations does not
inspire confidence. So also regarding the oral
dying declarations given by Pratibha to her mother
Chandrakala and maternal uncle Bhagchand are

¶160

concerned, it is pertinent to note that, the
Medical evidence brought on record unequivocally

¶161

establishes that, Pratibha received 98% burn
injuries and it is highly improbable that, a
person having received 98% burn injuries could be

¶162

310.03APPEAL

¶163

¶164

conscious to give oral statement. Therefore, the
prosecution case that, Pratibha had given such
oral dying declarations cannot be believed.

¶165

13. We have carefully perused the cross-
examination of the Investigating Officer Maruti
Sambhaji Sadaphule (PW-10). He stated in his
cross-examination that, accused no.2 Suresh Pawar
was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar
till 29th January, 2001 for his burn injuries.
However, he stated that, he is not recollecting
whether accused – Suresh had received 10% burn

¶166

injuries. He is not able to recollect whether
accused - Suresh had sustained the burn injuries
on his face, nose and hands. He admitted that, it
was necessary to obtain medical certificate
showing the injuries sustained by accused no.2 –
Suresh and submit the same along with the
charge-sheet. However, the same was not submitted

¶167

since the certificate was not obtained by the
Investigating Officer.

¶168

310.03APPEAL

¶169

¶170

14.If the case of the prosecution is

¶171

considered in its entirety, it appears that,
Pratibha sustained burn injuries due to burst of
stove and her burn injuries were superficial to
deep to the extent of 98%, as stated by the
Medical Officer. Her over all physical and mental
condition was not good. The fingers were totally
burnt. The accused tried to extinguish the fire
and in the said process accused – Suresh sustained

¶172

10% burn injuries and he was hospitalized. His
injury certificate was not brought on record or
filed along with the charge-sheet. There is room

¶173

for doubt that, the investigation carried out by
the Investigating Officer was not proper and he
tried to suppress the genesis of the incident.
When Ramesh Anant Deshpande (PW-8), who visited
the spot immediately after the incident, in his
evidence has clearly stated that, the stove was
lying on the floor, however, the said stove has

¶174

not been shown by the Investigating Officer in the
spot panchanama.

¶175

310.03APPEAL

¶176

¶177

15.We have carefully gone through the

¶178

findings recorded by the trial Court and upon re-
appreciation of the evidence, we find that, the
findings recorded by the trial Court are in
consonance with the evidence brought on record.
The trial Court has given detail findings and
since we are in agreement with the said findings,
in order to avoid repetition, we have not
discussed the same in detail.

¶179

16.The law is well settled that, if the
possible view has been taken by the trial Court,
in that case, the order of acquittal deserves no
interference. The Supreme Court in the case of
Muralidhar alias Gidda and another Vs. State of

¶180

Karnataka1in para 12 held thus:-

¶181

12. The approach of the appellate Court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu Vs.State, AIR 1954 SC 1, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 637, Atley

¶182

2014 [4] Mh.L.J.[Cri.] 353

¶183

310.03APPEAL

¶184

¶185

Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807, Aher Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217, Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G.Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, Noor Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286, Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar, [1970] 2 SCC 450, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793, Lekha Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, [1973] 2 SCC 424, Khem Karan Vs. State of U.P., [1974] 4 SCC 603, Bishan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [1974] 3 SCC 288, Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs. Sate of Gujarat, [1978] 1 SCC 228, K.Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P., [1979] 1 SCC 355, Tota Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [1987] 2 SCC 529, Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp [1] SCC 248, Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K, [1997] 7 SCC 677, Sambasivan Vs. State of Kerala, [1998] 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of M.P. [2002] 4 SCC 85, Harijana Thirupala Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., [2002] 6 SCC 470, C. Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, [2003] 1 SCC 1, State of Karnataka Vs. K.Gopalakrishna, [2005] 9 SCC 291, State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran, [2007] 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, [2007] 4 SCC 415. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that

¶186

310.03APPEAL

¶187

¶188

this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate Court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the powers of the appellate Court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate Court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial Court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate Court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate Court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and

¶189

310.03APPEAL

¶190

¶191

(iv) Merely because the appellate Court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate Court in the judgment of the trial Court.

¶192

[Underlines added]

¶193

17.In the light of discussion in foregoing

¶194

paragraphs, we are of the considered view that the
findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court
are in consonance with the evidence brought on
record and there is no perversity as such. The
view taken by the trial Court is plausible and
therefore there is no reason to cause interference
in the order of acquittal.

¶195

18.For the reasons aforestated, we are of

¶196

the opinion that there is no merit in the Appeal
filed by the State. The Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed. Bail Bonds, if any, of Respondent Nos.1

¶197

310.03APPEAL

¶198

¶199

and 2, stand cancelled.

¶200

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.

¶201

SGA

State of Maha v. Lilabai Sopan Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maha v. Lilabai Sopan Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjeevan Jaikumar Sanghai Vs Parbhani Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Sheetal Sarang Ghayatadak Vs Samaj Prabodhan Sanstha through Its President and Others

The Sangamner Bhag Sahakari and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Renuka Vijay Mahagavali Vs Vijay Kisan Mahagavali

Nivrutti Laxman Sale Vs State of Maha and Ors.

The State of Mah. Vs Kailas Pradhan and Ors.