STATE Vs. GURUNATHRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.

(2.) The state is in appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows:

(3.) The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that there are few discrepancies which the Trial Court has emphasised in holding that the Prosecution had not made out a case to bring home the charges against the accused and he would take this Court through the record to demonstrate the fallacy committed by the Court below in having acquitted the accused notwithstanding the fact that the Prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In this regard, he would draw attention to the evidence of complainant- PW1 the wife of the deceased. According to her, the background is that the accused were having motive to bring harm to herself, her husband and family in view of the fact that she has married outside her caste against the wishes of accused No.1 and that because she was also claiming her share of property from her father. This having been a grievance over the years, there was sufficient motive for the accused to bring harm to the deceased, and it is in this background that on the fateful day, as revealed by her husband Maruti, all the accused together had forcibly taken him to the land of one Rehman Saab and had administered pesticide. It is on his own revelation over the sequence of events that the PW1 had thereafter lodged complaint against the accused. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the statement made by the complainant as to the manner in which the events unfold is categorically supported by other witnesses such as PWs.4, 7, 8 and 12, who are all the independent neighbouring witnesses apart from PW5-the maternal uncle. Except PW5, the other witnesses are neighbourers and independent witnesses who have consistently stated that the sequence of events were as spelt out by PW1 in the face of which on certain minor discrepancies, the court below having taken incorrect view and having negated the evidence of PW1 is wholly unfortunate and has caused serious miscarriage of justice. He would submit that the delay in lodging the complaint was on account of the fact that the deceased was coherent when he came home and the seriousness of the situation may have been lost on the complainant and others and it is only at the instance of PW5-maternal uncle of PW1 that initiative to carry him to the hospital in a jeep was undertaken; and even at the Police Station, the police having realised the situation, had directed that the deceased be rushed to hospital first even before any proceedings could be initiated and thereafter the deceased having become unconscious and later having died has not evoked the kind of response from the complainant and others as was rightly deserved. It is in retrospect that after the death of the deceased the complainant has again visited the police station to lodge the complaint. The sequence of events, therefore, cannot be disbelieved merely on account of this delay which has occasioned on the complainant and others not having responded in the manner that they should have actually responded. For otherwise, the narration of events cannot be doubted and the facts that the deceased was in a position to speak to the hearing of several witnesses of the manner in which the pesticide was forcibly administered on him cannot be disbelieved. The fact that other witnesses such as PWs.2, 3 and 13 who are examined as eye-witnesses of having seen the deceased as well as the accused on the land of Rehman Saab, though the PW2 in his examination in Chief has stated that he did not see the accused in the lands of Rehman Saab and he also did not go near Maruti and speak to him, it could transpire that he did see Maruti. PW3, who was said to have been cultivating the lands of Rehman Saab, has stated that that on the date of the incident he did not see deceased in the lands of Rehman Saab nor did he see the accused. PW13, who is the owner of the adjacent land to that of Rehman Saab, also has not claimed that he heard any voice nor did he see two of the accused. Though the witnesses initially had made statements to state that they had seen the accused as well as the deceased, having partially resiled and two others having wholly resiled from their statements ought not to have been held against the prosecution in holding that the case had not been established beyond all reasonable doubts. It is in this fashion that the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to question the reasoning of the Court below in having acquitted the accused.