The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramgouda Malgouda Patil And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8608 Bom

                                            1/5                        4 - Appeal 299-2004.doc




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2004

The State of Maharashtra                               ....Appellant
                                                       (Orig. Complainant)
                  V/s.

1. Ramgouda Malgouda Patil
2. Shamgouda Malgouda Patil
3. Malgouda Raghunath Patil

All r/o. Dorli, Tal. Tasgaon,
Dist. Sangli.                                          ....Respondents
                                                       (Orig. Accused)
                                    ----
Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, Addl. P.P. for State.
                                    ----

                                         CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 30th JUNE, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Though the matter is listed for orders today, learned Additional

P.P. states that as the appeal is against acquittal for an offence charged under

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court may finally dispose the

appeal subject to convenience of the Court. Hence, taken up for hearing.

2. I have considered the impugned judgment and evidence with

the assistance of Ms. Deshmukh. Ms. Deshmukh in fairness states that

prosecution's case is that two persons got injured but the doctor's evidence

shows that one person had simple injury and there is no evidence about

injury to the other person. Further, the panch witness Subhash Kore (P.W. 7)

for recovery panchanama has stated that police obtained his signature upon

Purti Parab

2/5 4 - Appeal 299-2004.doc

ready made panchanama. So also the spot panch witness Vilas Patil (P.W. 1)

has also turned hostile and has stated that police obtained his signature

upon ready made panchanama. Sambhaji Patil (P.W. 8) says that he does

not know the cause of injury and he has not seen accused assaulting

Vishwas (P.W. 3). P.W. 4 Nagesh Patil admits in his cross-examination that

there were quarrels about boundary with accused.

3. The Trial Court has considered all these points and acquitted

accused.

4. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P.1 has culled out

the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an

appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment

read as under:

72. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.

2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and

1 (2008) 10 SCC 450

Purti Parab

3/5 4 - Appeal 299-2004.doc

compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.

73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.

5. The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar

& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka2 has held that unless, the conclusions reached

2 (2014) 5 SCC 730

Purti Parab

4/5 4 - Appeal 299-2004.doc

by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous

view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to

result in grave injustice, Appellate Court should not interfere with the

conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the

appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is

inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal

is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view.

We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of

innocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by

the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court.

6. The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat 3

has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that

the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court

finds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably

unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its

own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was

nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the

Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own

conclusions.

7. Having perused the impugned judgment and considered the

evidence, I do not find anything palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or 3 1996 SCC (cri) 972

Purti Parab

5/5 4 - Appeal 299-2004.doc

demonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. From the evidence

available on record, there is nothing to substantiate the charge leveled

against accused.

8. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption

in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to

the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that

every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty

by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal,

the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and

strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Sessions Court

rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.

9. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Sessions

Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order

of acquittal, in my view, need not be interfered with.

10. Appeal dismissed.

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Purti Parab