JUDGEMENT SUMMARY:
The State Of Maharashtra vs Gulab Dattu Patil And Ors
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
4th February 2022
JUDGES:
S.S. Shinde, J.
M. N. Jadhav, J.
PARTIES:
The State of Maharashtra (Appellant)
Gulab Dattu Patil. And Ors. (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The High Court of Bombay observed that due caution must be exercised by Appellate Court before reversing the orders by Trial Courts. In the present case, the HC of Bombay adjudicated criminal appeal against the judgement of the Trial Court. In the case it carefully examined findings of the Trial Court and let the said judgement remain undisturbed.
AN OVERVIEW
- The wife of Respondent No. 2 had filed a petition in the Court because of the mistreatment met to her by him and she sought for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. An FIR was lodged after a person found the Respondent No. 2’s father-in-law, the naked dead body with injuries which still bled.
- Allegations were made that the Respondent No. 2 had hired Respondent No. 1 through Respondent No. 3 to kill the deceased and paid a certain amount for the alleged killing. Respondent No. 1 had lured the deceased and had killed him. Further to get rid of the evidence, he was said to have unclothed the deceased and left the body of the deceased naked in the field.
- The Respondents were arrested and evidence was collected along with the disclosure statement made by the Respondent No. 1. The offence being punishable under Section 302 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
- A total of fourteen witnesses were examined by the Prosecution. However, no defence witnesses were produced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court had acquitted the Respondents of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC on the ground that the Prosecution had not established the chain of circumstances so as to implicate the Respondents in the crimes.
- The State of Maharashtra had assailed the impugned judgement of the Trial Court appealing before the High Court of Bombay.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code 1860
Section 34- Outlines collective liability of several person who have committed an offence in furtherance of common intention.
Section 120B- Outlines punishment of criminal conspiracy
Section 201- Penalises the act of causing disappearance of evidence of offence and the act of giving false information to screen offender
Section 302- Offence of murder is penalised
Section 364- Penalises the offence of kidnapping or abducting for murder
ISSUES
The Apex Court faced the following issues:
- Whether the judgement of the Trial Court can be reversed?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. In Murlidhar @ Gidda vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court had underscored the following fundamental principles which are to be considered by an appellate court while hearing an appeal against acquittal:
a. Proper weight and consideration should be given to the views of the trial Judge regarding the credibility of the witnesses.
b. The presumption of innocence favoured the accused and it could not be weakened by the fact that he had been acquitted at his trial
c. The Accused was entitled to the right to the benefit of any doubt
d. The Judge of the Trial Court was at the advantage of seeing the witnesses. However, the slow trial of an appellate court would disturb the finding of fact arrived at by such Judge.
2. In Surajpal Singh v. State, 1952 the SC had held that the High Court under Section 417 of CrPC had the power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded. It was settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused was consolidated by their acquittal by the trial court. It was further held that the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence, therefore, its findings could only be reversed for substantial and compelling reasons.
3. The present case was based solely upon circumstantial evidence rather than any eyewitnesses. The SC in Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra had underscored the fundamental principles upon which the criminal case founded on circumstantial evidence would be adjudicated. It was held that the circumstances were required to be evaluated properly and carefully to ascertain whether they led to the unequivocal inference of the guilt of the Respondents.
4. Due to lack of eyewitnesses in the case, four successive circumstances were inferred by the Prosecution upon which case was made against the Respondents. These were:
a. The Respondents had contracted to kill the deceased and the said amount involved was recovered.
b. From Respondent No. 1, the blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the Respondent No. 1 were recovered.
c. The deceased was last seen with Respondent No. 1.
d. There existed strong motive on the part of Respondent No. 2, and tangentially Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 for committing the offence.
5. For strengthening the theory of contract, the statement of the owner of the STD booth was recorded stating that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 had communicated over phone calls at the booth. However, the things that were absent which would have otherwise concretely proved the theory:
a. material evidence pertaining to the contract killing theory
b. the evidence establishing the role of the Respondent No. 3 which had been alleged.
c. There was no eyewitness who could have testified that the monetary transaction had taken place between Respondent No. 1 and 2 or that the said amount was recovered from the house of the Respondent No. 1.
6. Another witness had given the evidence of the purported recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the Respondent No. 1 from Respondent No. 1’s posession. On the contrary, the statement of the witness had damned the case of the Prosecution as he had provided a statement negating the theory.
7. Two witnesses had reported that the deceased before the incident was last seen with the Respondent No. 1. However, when the evidences were carefully evaluated, the theory was failed to be established as:
a. One of the witnesses was not acquainted with Respondent No. 1 and his bus was moving with fast pace which could have allowed him to have only a fleeting glance of the person who was with the deceased.
b. Another witness had taken four days to disclose the sequence of events during which he had witnessed what he purported and he didn't even provide the explanation for such delay.
8. The wife of the Respondent No. 2 (daughter of the deceased) had contradictorily stated that there was no complaint filed against him from her side which damned the strong intention theory. Furthermore, the contract killing theory which was the lead of the motive theory was already disapproved of.
CONCLUSION
It was concluded that based on the depositions of the witnesses of prosecution and the circumstances that it had relied upon, it was impossible to unequivocally infer the guilt of the Respondents in respect of the offences they had been charged for. The Prosecution had failed to prove the Respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The decision of the Trial Court was, thus, not interfered with and criminal appeal was dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
