STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HARIBHAU KRISHNAJI DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed on 25-2-1987 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1983 acquitting the accused of all the changes levelled against them. The facts giving rise to this appeal stated briefly are that one Hari was employed as a cow boy by one of the accused. There was some dereliction of duty on the part of Hari and therefore he was slapped by two of the accused. Accused No. 11 twisted his ear and slapped him on his face. This Hari is of very young age and felt insulted by the assault and therefore did not go on duty on the next day. This gave rise to heated verbal exchange of words between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused. Altercations took place. It is alleged that one Baban, member of the family of the complainant received severe beating and thrashing as a consequence of which he died. Some other members of the complainant's family were also injured. The accused belong to one family and the complainant belong to one tribal known as Katkari, residing in the tribal area of Raigad district. The complainant thereafter was rushed to the police station. Investigation was carried out and it accused were prosecuted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 346, 426, 452, 504 and Sections 304 and 201 of the I. P. C. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the entire evidence on record which consists of 15 witnesses, examined by the prosecution and various documents executed by the police during the course of investigation, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove all the charges levelled by them against the accused and therefore proceeded to acquit the accused by the judgment dated 25-2-1987 which is impugned in this appeal by the State.

(2.) WE have noticed that when this Bench was assigned the work of taking old criminal appeals in which the accused persons were on bail, in most of the cases the appeal is by the State, challenging the acquittal because the accused are on bail and these matters were given the backseat, which resulted that the matter right from the year 1987-88 are still pending. For all these years i. e. about 15 years these accused persons are on bail, by and large there is no complaint of anyone has committed some other serious cognizable offences and the question which therefore perplexes, this Court almost in every appeal against the acquittal, is whether the powers of the appellate Court under Section 378 of Cr. P. C. 1973 are liable to be exercised to upset the acquittal made 15 years ago when the accused who were acquitted are on bail of all these years. What will be the consequence of they are being out in jail after a period of 15 years on the ground that the order by which they were acquitted was so bad and therefore not sustainable in law. Related questions as to what should be the sentences to be imposed in such cases, what purpose would be served by sending the accused persons to jail, what purpose would be served by convicting them after so many years? Why the acquittal requires such reversal? Infact, we have given our serious thought to all these questions and in our opinion basically the matter would centre around as to whether after 15 years the order of acquittal should be set aside or not and if so, what should be the circumstances in which the powers be exercised by this Court irrespective of the passage of time.

(3.) WITH this object in mind, we will look into the entire case law on the point as settled by the Supreme Court of India beginning with the first available decision of the Privy Council, which is reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 (2 ). That judgment is obviously under the Cr. P. C. 1898. At that time the relevant section of appeal against acquittal was Section 417. The Bench of five Honourable Judges of the Privy Council heard the question of scope and extend of powers of the High Court under Section 417 of 1898 Code in relation to reversal of the order of acquittal. Five Judges of the Privy Council took a very serious view and observed as under.