STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ALARAM UJARSINGH HALAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against acquittal of the respondent of the offence of murder. In support of the appeal, Mr. Ahirkar, learned A.P.P. for the State, assailing the judgment of the trial court argued that there is perversity on the part of the trial court in the matter of appreciation of evidence and by relying on the immaterial, irrelevant omissions, the trial Judge has acquitted the respondent-accused. He, thereafter, submits that the ocular testimony of PW 1 and PW 4 has wrongly been rejected by the trial court and therefore, it is a fit case for reversal of judgment of acquittal.

(2.) Per contra, Ms. Haideri, learned counsel (appointed) for the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment and took us through the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4. She argued that the trial Judge has discussed the evidence, appreciated the same after marshalling the facts and has come to the conclusion that no finding of conviction could be recorded. At any rate, according to her, if benefit of doubt is extended to respondent-accused, no interference could be made in the appeal against acquittal by the High Court.

(3.) We have perused the impugned judgment and order recorded by the trial court. We have seen evidence of PW 1 and PW 4. PW 4 did not say a word against the accused about the assault by him. Therefore, in our opinion, PW 4 is not an eye witnesses. So far as evidence of PW 1 is concerned, there are material omissions which are fatal to the prosecution. We have checked up from the record whether the omissions are really the material omissions and whether were rightly taken into consideration by the trial Judge for disbelieving the said evidence. Instead of repeating the evidence, we quote the relevant para from the judgment of the trial court, which reads thus: