In a significant ruling by the High Court of India, the case of Gabare vs. State of Maharashtra has resulted in the acquittal of several accused individuals. The decision marks a pivotal moment in the judicial process, shedding light on the complexities of the legal system. Stay tuned to explore the details and implications of this ruling.
Facts
- The High Court acquitted several accused on the grounds of omissions and lack of specific charges related to the injuries inflicted on the deceased.
- Eyewitness testimonies of PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8 were disbelieved by the High Court due to inconsistencies and lack of specificity.
- Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5 were convicted of offenses under Sections 148, 302, and 324 of the IPC, while the remaining accused were acquitted.
- The High Court relied primarily on the evidence of Janakibai (PW-1) in reaching its decision.
- Accused Nos. 1 to 5, 11 to 13, and 15 were found guilty by the Trial Court based on the evidence, while Sambhaji was given the benefit of doubt due to lack of active participation in the assault.
- Khemaji s/o Maroti Gabare did not file an appeal against his conviction
- Court directed release on bail on 30.06.2016
- Eye-witnesses Janakibai Gabare, Kamalbai Gabare, Govind Gabare, and Ganesh Gabare testified to the attack on the deceased
- Deceased suffered nine injuries leading to his death
- Altercation attributed to political rivalry
- Deceased was previously Sarpanch of the Village creating animosity with accused
- 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution
- Accused attacked deceased and family with axes and sticks in 2006
- Accused suffered imprisonment for over ten years
- Accused are closely related as nephews of the deceased
- Accused Nos. 3 and 5 are appealing before the Court
- Power cut during incident but moonlight allowed identification of accused
- Multiple Criminal Appeals filed by the accused
- Dasari Maadhav Rao was the Sarpanch prior to the present Sarpanch
Also Read: P.J. Antony and Cheriyan Kuruvila vs. State Forest Department
Analysis
- Witness Janakibai’s testimony regarding the attack on the deceased and others by a group of accused is inconsistent and embellished.
- Contradictions in Janakibai’s statements raise reasonable doubt about the accuracy of her account.
- Difficulty in believing Janakibai’s identification of attackers and weapons used in a chaotic and dark situation, especially with contradictory statements.
- Uncertainty in Janakibai’s testimony due to inconsistencies, making her evidence unreliable.
- Absence of credible evidence to support crucial elements of the prosecution’s case, including lack of examination of key witness Annapurnabai.
- Insufficient proof provided by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Lack of corroboration for key details mentioned by Janakibai in her deposition, such as the presence of moonlight during the incident.
- High Court’s decision to discard other eye-witnesses, leaving Janakibai’s testimony as the sole basis for the appellants’ guilt.
- Explanation of the High Court’s reasoning for overturning the conviction under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC due to lack of specific charges against each accused for the injuries inflicted on the injured parties.
- The appellants have been incarcerated for 10 years.
- There are gaps in the prosecution’s case.
- The evidence provided by PW-1 is weak.
- Benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants due to the shaky evidence.
- The Court finds in favor of the appellants in this case.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta And Ors. vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Decision
- Appeals allowed
- Fine amount paid by appellants to be refunded
- Bail bonds and sureties of appellants discharged
- Appellants acquitted of offences under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC
Also Read: Karikho Kri vs Nuney Tayang Legal Battle
Case Title: SAHEB S/O MAROTI BHUMRE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2024 INSC 700)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000313-000314 – 2012
