ash 1 crapealst-240.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL ST. NO.240 OF 2012
Dundawwa Shivappa Bagewadi. .. Appellant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
Shri Murtuza M. Najmi for the Appellant.
ShrI H.J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent No.1.
Shri Jayant Bardeskar for Respondent No.2.
--
CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ
DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2012
JUDGMENT ( PER A.S. OKA, J )
1. By this Appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Appellant who is the victim has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 22 nd April, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj by which the Respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. When the Appeal was called out, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the Appellant that for challenging the same Judgment and Order, the State had filed an Application under Section ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:19 ::: ash 2 crapealst-240.12 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as "CRPC") and by Judgment and Order dated 13 th September, 2010 passed by another Division Bench of this Court, the said Application was rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the doctrine of merger will not apply as what is rejected is an application for grant of leave to prefer an Appeal. He urged that the Division Bench while dismissing Application for leave, was impressed with delay in recording statements of the material witnesses and no other incriminating evidence has been taken into consideration. He pointed out the other evidence on record and especially the evidence of recovery of weapons which is not considered by the Division Bench while rejecting the application for leave filed by the State. He urged that under the proviso to Section 372 of CRPC, an Appeal against acquittal is available as a matter of right. Hence, he urged that this Appeal deserves to be heard independently of the findings recorded by the Division Bench while rejecting an Application for grant of leave to prefer an Appeal.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions. The Application for grant of leave to prefer Appeal against the same Judgment and Order has been rejected by another Division Bench by order dated 13th September, 2010. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the said Judgment and Order read thus: -
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:19 :::ash 3 crapealst-240.12 "4. It is not in dispute that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution heavily relied on the circumstance of deceased last seen with the accused, as well as seizure of blood stained clothes of the accused. In the instant case, the complainant ( the mother of the deceased Anil) though lodged first information report on 8.1.2009, however, she has not implicated any of the respondents in the crime in question and for the first time made allegations against them in her supplementary statement which was recorded by the police two days thereafter.
5.It is also not in dispute that the prosecution has examined PW-9 Vijay, PW 10 Ananda, PW 11 Sanjay and PW 12 Sachin on the point of deceased last seen with the accused at 1:00 a.m. on 8.1.2009. However, the Investigating Officer, for the first time, recorded their statements twenty days after the dead body of deceased came to be recovered. In the instant case, though the blood was detected on the clothes of the accused, however, the chemical analyser's report only shows that it was a human blood, however, blood group could not be detected.
6. Taking into consideration, the totality of the above referred circumstances, particularly, delay in recording the statements of important witnesses on the point of last seen as well as nothing was alleged in the FIR, which was lodged on 1.8.2009 by the complainant, we are of the view that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is sustainable in law. No case is made out for showing indulgence."
4. An Appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of CRPC being an Appeal against acquittal is governed by constraints of an Appeal against ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:19 ::: ash 4 crapealst-240.12 acquittal. The law is well settled. Even if two views are possible, and if the view taken by the Trial Court in favour of the Accused is a possible view, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal. In the present case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a reasoned Judgment and Order has dismissed the Application for leave by specifically holding that the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is sustainable in law. The view taken is binding on us. We cannot take a contrary view on the ground that some other evidence was available which was not considered by the Division Bench. We cannot ignore the well settled law that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal.
5. In view of what is discussed above, the present Appeal cannot be entertained in view of clear finding recorded by co-ordinate Bench. Hence, it is not necessary to consider the academic question of merger.
6. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER :
The Appeal is dismissed.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:19 :::