Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said while convicting a person charged with the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which creates a vicarious liability, the courts should be extra cautions, as it upheld acquittal of 16 persons by the Bombay High Court in a case of 2008 murder following a fight over playing cricket in a field.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma noted as many as 35 persons were charged and the high court had rightly found that there were serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

"Though the provisions governing falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus may not have a strict application to the courts in India, the evidence will have to be assessed with a higher degree of care, especially when a witness deposes differently and the courts find that a part of the statement is not correct. This is more so when we are dealing with a case involving Section 149 of the IPC," the bench said.  

Other than this, the court also pointed out, the high court had taken into consideration various factors before rendering the order of acquittal. This included the fact that the witnesses had turned hostile and the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could not be accepted, as the material objects had been recovered from the open space. The nature of injuries attributed to the injured eye witnesses did not correspond with the weapons which had allegedly been recovered.

"There is a clear discrepancy between the statement made by the medical officer and the injured eye-witnesses," the bench said.

Ramesh Maruti Gondhali, the first informant, filed an appeal before the apex court. The accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, and 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the provisions of Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 

The case of the prosecution was that the complainant, along with seven others was playing cricket on October 29, 2008 – date of occurrence. The accused persons came and made an attempt to play on the very same ground. There was an altercation that ensued, as they were prevented from doing so by the deceased due to paucity of adequate space. 

Under rage, the accused persons came to the place of occurrence and allegedly committed the offence which led to the death of the informant’s cousin and injuries suffered by others. In total, there were about 35 accused persons. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted 19 of them and convicted 16 persons. 

The high court, by its judgment, after reassessing the evidence available on record dismissed the appeals filed against the acquittal and allowed the appeals filed against the conviction rendered by the trial court. 

The appellants' counsel submitted that there were injured eye-witnesses whose evidence ought to have been placed by the high court at a higher pedestal. The high court had committed an error in disbelieving the recovery. The motive for the crime had been proved, as there was a prior dispute. Merely because the witnesses who had been examined were related to the deceased, was not a reason to disbelieve their testimony, he argued.

The counsel said mere delay in recording the statement or reading the complaint per se could not be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution’s version of events. Between the existence of ocular evidence and medical evidence, the former will have to be given preference. Both the courts have not considered the evidence in its correct perspective, as there are ample materials available on record to implicate all the private respondents, he submitted. 

The respondents-accused, on the contrary, said there were material discrepancies between the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which had rightly been taken note of by the high court in its judgment. The oral evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses did not concur with the nature of the alleged injuries suffered by them, as revealed by the medical report. 

The high court had rightly disbelieved the recovery, particularly, in light of the witnesses turning hostile and the recoveries having been made from the open spaces. Motorcycles which were present in the scene of occurrence had not been seized and the owners had not been identified by the investigating officer, their counsel said.

The counsel also said the weapons allegedly used to commit the offence did not tally with the nature of injuries suffered, as revealed by the medical evidence. The injuries suffered did not correspond with the statement made by the eye-witnesses. Hence, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses, especially, in the light of apparent discrepancies in the same. In such a view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, he contended.    

After hearing the counsel, the court also took note of the fact that the trial court had already acquitted 19 accused persons, which had been confirmed by the high court. 

"As far as the other 16 accused persons are concerned, since the High Court has rendered an acquittal by overturning the conviction rendered by the Trial Court, this court will have to be very slow in interfering with the said decision made, unless an apparent perversity is shown. If the view expressed by the High Court is a plausible view, then the benefit will have to be extended to the accused persons. The presumption of innocence would get strengthened in such a case," the bench said.

After going through the judgment of the high court, the bench found that the entire evidence available on record had been discussed at length before rendering an order of acquittal. 

"In such a view of the matter, we find no perversity or reason to interfere with the same," the bench said, dismissing the appeals.

Case Title: Ramesh Maruti Gandholi Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr