Case: State of Maharashtra Vs. Niranjan &amp; Others

that he minutely inspected the spot of incident but he did not find any marks of firing. The spot panchnama is at Exhibit-22. Upon careful perusal of the spot panchnama it clearly reveals that nothing objectionable was found on the spot of incident. Therefore, we find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 that if the incident of firing had really been taken place, then the bullet or the cap of the bullet should have been found on the spot of incident. We further find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 that when it is the case of the prosecution that bullet was fired at the direction of tent, then there should have been hole to the tent. But the prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to show that there was hole to the tent on the spot of incident.14. The trial Court has observed that, in the present case the conduct of the witnesses is very material. According to the prosecution witnesses after they heard the sound, they came out of the tent, still the informant has not narrated the incident to them. The trial Court further observed that, even after the accused No.1 had fired at the informant, the informant did not move from his place, thereby further casting doubts regarding truthfulness of the prosecution story. The trial Court has further observed that accused No.1 had license to carry 25 cartridges and when police had attached the cartridges in the absence of accused No.1 from his house, all 25 cartridges were found. The trial Court has further observed that the said fact clearly discloses that bullet must not have been fired or there would have been one less cartridge which is also circumstance disproving the case of the prosecution. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly observed that, if accused and informant never met each other at any time earlier to the incident nor they had any altercation or quarrel before the incident, then there was no necessity or reason for the accused to fire at the person of the informant. After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the trial Court has observed that, it becomes substantially doubtful whether accused had really fired bullet or not and hence they deserve to be given benefit of doubt and hence entitled to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P. Code. Accordingly the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from the offences with which they were charged.15. After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we are convinced that the finding recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record. There is no perversity as such. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible. On independent scrutiny of the evidence also, we find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Vairagade and PW-2 Gaikwad is not reliable, as they have stated that before the incident in question, they never met with accused persons and prior to the incident they were not even knowing the names of the accused, and they have stated the names of the accused after getting information from the M.S.E.B. workers. PW-3 Prabhakar, and PW-5 Kacharu Gaikwad had not at all supported the prosecution case as they have stated that they have not witnessed the incident. PW-4 Sudarshan Chaudhari has also not supported the prosecution case and stated in clear terms that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot of incident. PW-6 Satishkumar Tak, Investigating Officer, admitted during the course of his cross-examination that he had inspected the spot of incident minutely but he did not find any marks of firing on the spot of incident. Therefore considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is doubtful whether the incident in question had really taken place or not. In that view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves to cause interference in the order of acquittal.16. The Supreme Court in the case of Muralidhar alias Gidda and another Vs. State of Karnataka, 2014 [4] Mh.L.J.[Cri.] 353, in para 12 held thus:"12. The approach of the appellate Court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu Vs.State, AIR 1954 SC 1 , Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 637 , Atley Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 , Aher Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 , Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216 , M.G.Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 , Noor Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286 , Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar, [1970] 2 SCC 450 , Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793 , Lekha Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, [1973] 2 SCC 424 , Khem Karan Vs. State of U.P., [1974] 4 SCC 603 , Bishan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [1974] 3 SCC 288 , Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs. Sate of Gujarat, [1978] 1 SCC 228 , K.Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P., [1979] 1 SCC 355 , Tota Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [1987] 2 SCC 529 , Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp [1] SCC 248, Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K, [1997] 7 SCC 677 , Sambasivan Vs. State of Kerala, [1998] 5 SCC 412 , Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of M.P. [2002] 4 SCC 85 , Harijana Thirupala Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., [2002] 6 SCC 470 , C. Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, [2003] 1 SCC 1 , State of Karnataka Vs. K.Gopalakrishna, [2005] 9 SCC 291 , State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran, [2007] 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, [2007] 4 SCC 415. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. The trial Court has observed that, in the present case the conduct of the witnesses is very material. According to the prosecution witnesses after they heard the sound, they came out of the tent, still the informant has not narrated the incident to them. The trial Court further observed that, even after the accused No.1 had fired at the informant, the informant did not move from his place, thereby further casting doubts regarding truthfulness of the prosecution story. The trial Court has further observed that accused No.1 had license to carry 25 cartridges and when police had attached the cartridges in the absence of accused No.1 from his house, all 25 cartridges were found. The trial Court has further observed that the said fact clearly discloses that bullet must not have been fired or there would have been one less cartridge which is also circumstance disproving the case of the prosecution. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly observed that, if accused and informant never met each other at any time earlier to the incident nor they had any altercation or quarrel before the incident, then there was no necessity or reason for the accused to fire at the person of the informant. After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the trial Court has observed that, it becomes substantially doubtful whether accused had really fired bullet or not and hence they deserve to be given benefit of doubt and hence entitled to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P. Code. Accordingly the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from the offences with which they were charged.15. After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we are convinced that the finding recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record. There is no perversity as such. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible. On independent scrutiny of the evidence also, we find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e.Gaikwad is not reliable, as they have stated that before the incident in question, they never met with accused persons and prior to the incident they were not even knowing the names of the accused, and they have stated the names of the accused after getting information from the M.S.E.B. workers.Kacharu Gaikwad had not at all supported the prosecution case as they have stated that they have not witnessed the incident.Sudarshan Chaudhari has also not supported the prosecution case and stated in clear terms that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot of incident.Satishkumar Tak, Investigating Officer, admitted during the course of histhat he had inspected the spot of incident minutely but he did not find any marks of firing on the spot of incident. Therefore considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is doubtful whether the incident in question had really taken place or not. In that view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves to cause interference in the order of acquittal.