State preferred criminal appeal against Sessions Court order acquitting accused in murder case. High Court analyzed eye-witness inconsistencies and medical evidence, upheld acquittal dismissing appeal.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of accused upheld.
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.
Cri.Appeal 448-2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra
= APPELLANT
VERSUS
R/o Accused 1, 2 & 4 at Jakni Tanda and Accused No.3 at Mailapur Tanda = RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.M.Ganachari, APP for Appellant-State;
Mr. B.S.Kudale, Advocate holding for Shri Anant D.Gadekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM : SUNIL P.DESHMUKH & P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : 2nd February, 2018.
JUDGMENT :(Per: P.R.Bora,J.)
judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.140/1996 decided
Cri.Appeal 448-2002
2
on 30th April 2002. The respondents herein, who are herein after referred to as accused were prosecuted in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 read 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3 Cri.Appeal 448-2002
4 Cri.Appeal 448-2002
prosecution examined as many 22 witnesses. The defense of the accused was of total denial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after having assessed the evidence on record, acquitted all the accused by giving them benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by, the State has preferred the present appeal.
5 Cri.Appeal 448-2002
prosecution and the injuries caused to deceased Jagdish, which ultimately resulted in causing his death, were also duly proved by examining the necessary witnesses in that regard. The learned APP further submitted that motive was also brought on record by the prosecution and in such circumstances; the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have endorsed clean acquittal in favour of the accused persons. The learned APP further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution needs reappreciation by this Court. The learned APP further submitted that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt proves the guilt of the accused, and as such, all the accused are liable to be held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 read 34 of IPC and needs to be adequately punished.
6 Cri.Appeal 448-2002
the trial court. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
. After having gone through the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, we do not see that the
7 Cri.Appeal 448-2002
observations made by the trial judge are erroneous or contrary to the evidence on record. As has been observed by the learned Trial Judge, PW 1 – Yuvraj appeared on the scene of occurrence bit later and possibly did not eye witness the accused making assaults on deceased Jagdish.
that she was in her house and after hearing the quarrel came out of her house and reached on the spot. She has
also deposed that, she witnessed the accused persons making assault on deceased Jagdish. However, in the cross-examination, PW 4 – Motabai has candidly admitted that her house is at such a distance from place of occurrence which can be covered within the time which required for preparing two Jawar Rotis (Jawar Bhakaris). The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that for preparing two Jawar Rotis, at least 5-10 minutes may be required. The learned Trial Judge has further observed that if the house of PW 4 – Motabai may be at the distance of 5-10 minutes of walk from the alleged occurrence, there was no possibility of PW 4–Motabai eye-witnessing the
Cri.Appeal 448-2002
8
assaults made on deceased Jagdish.
9 Cri.Appeal 448-2002
10 Cri.Appeal 448-2002
has categorically deposed that the injury on the head of deceased Jagdish, which ultimately resulted in causing his death, was possibly caused by an axe, which was the incriminating article in Crime No. 101/1995. Crime No. 101/1995 was registered on a cross-complaint filed by Kashinath Reku Pawar arising out of the same incident. During the course of hearing of the present Sessions Trial, the said axe, though it was seized in Crime No.101/1995, was called for by the Court and it was shown to Dr. Kasbe during the course of his evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that though it has come on record through some of the prosecution witnesses that Uttam Jadhav made an assault on deceased Jagdish with the help of tommy, the said evidence has not been corroborated by the circumstances as well as the medical evidence on record.
Cri.Appeal 448-2002
11
accused in Sessions Case No. 186/1996. In Sessions Case No. 140/1996, it was the case of the prosecution that since Jagdish had refused to marry with daughter of accused – Babu Reku Pawar, the accused were annoyed and that annoyance has resulted in making assaults by them on deceased Jagdish causing his death. It has to be stated that Babu Reku Pawar (accused No.1) and Kashinath Reku Pawar (accused No.2) are real brothers of mother of deceased Jagdish; whereas accused No.4 – Reku Gangaram Pawar is father of mother of deceased Jagdish. Accused No.3 – Uttam Hira Jadhav is the brother-in-law of father of deceased Jagdish. Thus, the accused are the close relatives of deceased Jagdish. As against it, the another complaint was filed by Kashinath Reku Pawar against deceased Jagdish; Yuvraj Parasram Rathod; Ashok Ram Banjare and Raju Tukaram Rathod that the accused unnecessarily picked up quarrel with him when he was sitting in front of the grocery shop of Yusuf Qureshi. It was alleged by him that he was assaulted by Yuvraj Rathod by an axe.
12
Cri.Appeal 448-2002
ORDER
. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(P.R.BORA) (SUNIL P.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/ fldr 3.2.18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of accused persons in a murder case by the Sessions Court.
What weight, if any, should be attached to the eye-witness testimonies regarding the timing and nature of the assault.
Whether the medical evidence regarding the weapon used is consistent with the prosecution's allegations.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Babu Reku Pawar
Kashinath Reku Pawar
Uttam Hira Jadhav
Rekhhu Gangaram Pawar
Sunil P. Deshmukh
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
