High Court dismissed criminal appeal against acquittal finding prosecution failed to prove guilt due to hostile eyewitnesses despite proved homicidal nature of child's death.
Leave of Court under Section 378(3) CrPC rejected and appeal under Section 14-A SC/ST (POA) Act stood dismissed.
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.
1/4
1306apeal541.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.541 OF 2021
(State of Maharashtra vs. Firoz Khan Akbar Khan and others)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for
appellant.
CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 13, 2022
Heard Shri Khan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the appellant. Nobody appears
for the respondents though duly served.
2)The respondents were prosecuted for the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 8 and
10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3 and 14 of the Child
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and
Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
3)By the judgment and order dated
6/7/2021 passed in Special Case No.15/2019, the
1306apeal541.21
2/4
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot acquitted
the respondents of all these offences recording a
finding that even though the death of child Krushna
Jambhekar was proved to be homicidal in nature, it
was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution that the homicidal death of Krushna was
committed by nobody else, but accused persons, i.e.
respondents.
4)Although the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor made a brave attempt to justify filing of
this appeal by the State, we must say that the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not
record any success. In fact, in a case like this,
prosecution could not have done anything more that
what it did while trying the respondents. In spite of
taking all good efforts by the prosecution, the guilt
of the accused persons, i.e. respondents for
commission of the offences with which they were
charged herein could not be established by the
prosecution.
5)Except for the evidence of P.W.9
Dr.Bhushan Rathod, Medical Officer, who
conducted post mortem examination, P.W.1
Anuradha Patekhede, Investigating Officer and
P.W.10 Sunil Sonwane, Investigating Officer for
investigation under the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1306apeal541.21
3/4
1989, all the deposing witnesses, who were in fact
eye witnesses, turned completely hostile to the
prosecution. P.W.3 Rajesh Rakshaskar, P.W.4
Ganesh Nagapure, P.W.5 Umesh Shirsat, P.W.6
Faruk Khan, P.W.7 Gajanan Telgote and P.W.8
Ranjit Kahar all were eye witnesses and all of them
turned hostile to the prosecution. In fact, these
witnesses had the opportunity of seeing the entire
incident - they being the employees of respondents
rendering their services either at Fiza Hotel or Fiza
Puncture Centre of respondent no.4 and, therefore,
could have become star witnesses of the prosecution,
if they had assisted the prosecution, but that was
not to be. P.W.8 Ranjit Kahar had nothing to do
with the respondents and was the independent eye
witness, but he too turned hostile to the prosecution.
With recusal from the Police statements by all these
witnesses, nothing remained in the prosecution as
there was no other evidence worth the name, which
was collected by the Investigating Officer during the
course of investigation. The trial Court, therefore, in
a helpless manner observed that except for proving
homicidal death of Krushna, the prosecution did not
prove that it was caused only by the respondents.
6) The view taken by the trial Court that the
prosecution failed to establish guilt of the
accused/respondents for the offences with which
they were charged in the trial, therefore, cannot be
1306apeal541.21
4/4
said to be perverse or impossible, rather the view so
taken is the logical outcome of the evidence correctly
appreciated. There is no scope for interfering with
the impugned judgment and order. The leave of the
Court sought under Section 378(3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code is, therefore, rejected and the appeal
filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 stands dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
khj
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:15.06.2022 11:28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned acquittal of respondents proving homicidal death but lack of evidence linking crime to accused was perverse or unsustainable?
7 provisions across 6 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Firoz Khan Akbar Khan and others
Sunil B. Shukre
G.A. Sanap
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court