STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DEVRAM NANA MANGELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Devram Nana Mangela was charged and tried for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149 read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") and in the alternative under sections 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and under sections 25(1)(A) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The respondent-accused has been acquitted by the judgment and order dated 1st June, 1987 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 250 of 1986. The respondent-accused alleged to have committed murder of one Pramod s/o complainant Pandharinath Pitale (PW 1) and husband of Ratanaprabha alias Pramila (PW

(2.) ) on 26th January, 1985 at 10.30 in the morning. 2.The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that complainant Pandharinath, resident of Narangi Phata, Taluka Vasai, had three sons; viz. Pramod, Arun and Rajendra. Pramila is his daughter-in-law and wife of deceased Pramod. It appears that the complainant had one more son Dilip who was murdered and in that case also the respondent was involved as one of the accused. Deceased Pramod was the complainant in that case and he had deposed against the accused. Deceased Pramod was the complainant in that case and he had deposed against the accused. The respondent-accused was acquitted in that trial and, thus, the two families were on inimical terms. The alleged incident that dates back to 26th January, 1985 when at about 10.30 a.m. in the morning the complainant was sitting on ota of his house at Narangiphata. Son Pramod was sitting beneath a tamarind tree at a distance of 25 feet on the rear side of the complainant's house. It is alleged that one Shrikant Sawant a friend of Pramod, came from the rear side of the house and informed Pramila who was cooking meal in the kitchen, that her husband is being attacked by the assailants who were hired by the respondent-accused to kill Pramod. On hearing this, Pramila rushed to ota where the complainant was sitting and informed him what she heard from Shrikant Sawant. She immediately ran towards the place where Pramod was sitting when the complainant also followed her. According to the prosecution, when the complainant was running towards the spot where Pramod was sitting he heard the sound of gunshots and thereafter he saw 4-5 assailants including the respondent-accused running away from the scene of offence. He could identify the respondent-accused only. According to the prosecution, the complainant and Pramila both saw the assailants armed with swords, daggers and knives. After Pramila reached near her husband, she found him in pool of blood with multiple bleeding injuries on his body. She embarrassed him when her clothes also were smeared with blood. Thereafter, Pramod was removed to rural hospital at Virar where he was declared dead. The complainant, thereafter, went to Virar police station and lodged the complaint. Investigating officer, one Mr. Kadre, carried out the investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the respondent-accused. The defence of the respondent was of total denial. According to him, he was not present at the place of offence and he did not know who killed Pramod. The prosecution, in support of their case, examined only two witnesses, viz. Complainant Pandharinath (PW 1) and Pramila, wife of deceased (PW 2). The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of these two witnesses, held that they have not seen the alleged incident, much less the respondent-accused firing shots at Pramod. According to the trial Court, there is absolutely no evidence to show that anybody had seen the accused firing gunshots at the deceased Pramod. It is further held that the case would not fall under section 141 I.P.C. since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there were five or more assailants involved in the alleged incident. The learned trial Judge has also recorded contradictions and omissions which, according to him, go to the root of the case and make the evidence of these two witnesses unreliable.

(3.) THE Supreme Court has laid emphasis on the general principle of criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is further strengthened by the acquittal. If two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the appellate court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the court below on its consideration of the evidence as available raises a conclusion only of guilt, the appellate court is not expected to interfere with the order of acquittal.