LexGAJANAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, GAJANAN A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA NOVEMBER 20, 1996 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860 : S. 302134-Appellant along with another prosecuted for murder- Trial Court acquitted them holding that witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses did not see the actual incident; their testimony does not inspire C confidence and is in conflict with medical evidence; the alleged extra judicial confession was introduced by prosecution to buttress its case; the occurrence did not take place in the manner suggested by the prosecution- On appeal High Court convicted appellant u!s 302 and maintained acquittal of the co-accused-Held, High Court should not have interfered with the D order of acquittal more so when the reasons given by the trial court were neither perverse nor even unreasonable-Trial Court gave cogent and sufficient reasons to acquit the appellant-High Court did not dispel the reasons given by trial court while upsetting the order of acquittal-Judgment of High Court set aside. Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 : E S. 3 78-Appeal against acquittal-Judicial approach in dealing with a case of appeal against acquittal has to be cautious, circumspect and careful-High Court overlooked these salutary principles and wrongly interfered with a well merited order of acquittal by adopting an erroneous F approach. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.89 of the Bombay High G Court in Crl. A. No. 285 of 1985. Lokesh Kumar and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellant. D.M. Nargolkar and S.M. Jadhav for the Respondent. 935 H A 936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The appellant alongwith Dnyandeo were tried for an offence under sections 302/34 !PC by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana in respect of an occurrence which took place on 10th September, 1984 in which Suryabhan died after receipt of a blow on his head resulting in multiple B fracture of the scalp bone. The trial court found that Gangubai, PW2 and Ukanda, PW. 3, who claimed to have seen the deceased being "dragged" (pulled) by the appellant after hitting him on the head with a heavy stone, had actually not seen the occurrence or any part thereof and their evidence did not inspire confidence. The trial court also referred to the medical evidence provided by Dr. Kashinath Motiram, PW. l, and found that the C account given by PW. 2 and PW. 3 was in conflict with the medical opinion. The trial court further opined that the prosecution had introduced letter Ext. p. 22, the alleged extra Judicial confession of the appellant with a view to buttress the prosecution case. It was held that the motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been established and that the occurrence did not take place in the manner and at the place suggested by the prosecution. D The trial court, on the basis of these findings acquitted the appellant and his co-accused. The High Court on an appeal by the State against acquittal reversed the findings in so far as the appellant is concerned and convicted him of an offence under sedion 302 !PC and sentenced hi.m to undergo life imprisonment, but maintained the acquittal of the co-accused since E learned counsel for the State did not press the appeal against his acquittal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and critically analysed the evidence on the record. F The manner in which the High Court has dealt with the appeal against acquittal has left much to be desired. The High Court treated PW. 2 and PW. 3 as if they were the eye witnesses of the occurrence and opined that the observations of the trial court "that there is no direct evidence in this case is obviously wrong". In the words of the High Court "merely because these witnesses did not see the actual assault by stone, their clinching G evidence cannot be discarded". We fail to understand the justification for .... criticism of the trial court as noticed above. If the High Court itself found • that PW. 2 and PW. 3 had not seen the actual assault on the deceased how they could be treated as providing direct evidence of assault is not at all intelligible. Similarly, while dealing with letter Ext. p. 22, the High Court, without at all dealing with the reasons given by the trial court to disbelieve H the evidence of PW. 7 and the recovery of the letter Ext. P. 22, opined that • GAJA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.