Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the acquittal of original accused nos. 2 (Prabhakar Nivrutti Choudhari), 3 (Mohan Nivrutti Choudhari), and 4 (Nivrutti Vishnu Choudhari) by the trial court in a murder case. The trial court had convicted original accused no. 1 (Kisan Nivrutti Choudhari) under Section 302 IPC for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, but acquitted the other three accused. The State challenged the acquittal of accused nos. 2 and 3 (accused no. 4 having died). The incident involved the death of Dattatray, who was allegedly assaulted by all four accused. Eye witnesses deposed that all accused participated in the assault. However, the post-mortem report revealed four incised wounds on the deceased, including a fracture of the tibia bone. The trial court noted that accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 were alleged to be armed with iron pipes and rods, which would typically cause contusions and weal marks, not incised wounds. The incised wounds were consistent with a sword, which was used by accused no. 1. Consequently, the trial court gave the benefit of doubt to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4, acquitting them. The High Court, after hearing the APP and perusing the evidence, found no reason to interfere with the acquittal. The court held that the medical evidence clearly contradicted the ocular version regarding the weapons used by accused nos. 2 and 3. The appeal against accused no. 1 abated due to his death, and the appeal against accused no. 4 also abated. The High Court dismissed the appeal against accused nos. 2 and 3, upholding their acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 325 - State appealed against acquittal of accused nos. 2 and 3 who were alleged to have assaulted deceased with iron pipes/rods - Trial court gave benefit of doubt as post-mortem showed only incised wounds caused by a sword, not blunt weapons - Held that acquittal was justified as medical evidence contradicted ocular version (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of original accused nos. 2 and 3 for offences under Sections 302 and 325 IPC was justified given the alleged contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed as against respondent no.1 (abated) and respondent no.4 (abated). Appeal against respondent nos. 2 and 3 dismissed, upholding their acquittal.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Benefit of doubt
- Medical evidence vs ocular evidence
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 325 IPC
- Abatement of appeal on death of accused
