Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No.162 of 2000. The respondents (original accused) were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 324, 337, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution case was that on 02.11.2000 at about 12 noon at Amardal Village behind the crematorium, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and caused hurt to the complainant and others. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found the prosecution witnesses to be unreliable and inconsistent, and accordingly acquitted the accused. The High Court, in appeal, examined the scope of interference in acquittal appeals and held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse. The court noted that the eyewitnesses were interested witnesses and their testimonies suffered from contradictions and improvements. The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution story. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of interference - High Court's power to reverse acquittal is limited to cases where the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable - Held that unless the findings are based on no evidence or are wholly unreasonable, the appellate court should not substitute its own view (Paras 1-16). B) Indian Penal Code - Unlawful Assembly and Hurt - Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 337 IPC - Prosecution case based on interested witnesses - Held that when the sole eyewitnesses are relatives of the complainant and their testimony is inconsistent and unreliable, conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 2-15). C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Offence under Section 3(1)(2)(5) - Requirement of proof of caste-based intent - Held that in the absence of credible evidence showing that the accused acted on account of the victim's caste, the charge under the Atrocities Act fails (Paras 2-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and calls for interference by the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No.162 of 2000 is upheld.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- Scope of interference in acquittal appeals
- Appreciation of evidence
- Unreliable witnesses
- Benefit of doubt
