- (1.) The facts leading to this appeal by special leave are as under : On 13.1.1997 at about 6 a.m. Bhairu Dadu Misale, resident of village Veeravade was on his way to Sholapur taking food for his son, who was in jail at that time. A short distance away from village Veeravade on the Pakani- Veeravade road he met PW 30 Kishore and PW 33 Dhanaji Tukaram Mane, both residents of the same village and got into a conversation with them. Bhairu Dadu thereafter left on his way to Sholapur, but a minute or two later the two P.Ws heard a noise and on looking in that direction observed that Bhairu Dadu had been surrounded by the six accused and while accused No.1 Jaisingh Shivaji Awatade and accused No.2 Shanu Awatade had caught hold of him, accused No.5 Haridas had closed his mouth, whereas the other two accused were strangulating him with a rope. Bhairu Dadu soon died on which his dead body was removed from the spot in Jeep bearing No. MH-13/A-3125 and deposited in the land of one Shanker (after it had been burned beyond recognition) from where it was subsequently recovered. It appears that Guranna PW1 who was not an eye witness received information about the dead body lying in the field belonging to Shanker. This witness reached the Police Station and lodged the FIR at about 10.30 p.m. on 13.1.1997. The investigation was thereafter set in motion and on completion thereof the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201 and 147 of the IPC. It transpired from the evidence that the accused and the deceased belonged to two different political parties and relations between the two were strained on that account. From the evidence of PW1, the observations recorded in the inquest report, and the medical evidence it was revealed that the dead body was of an individual about 25-30 years of age whereas the Bhairu Dadu in fact was about 50-55 years old at the time of his murder. A very large number of PW s resiled during the course of the trial though the two eye witnesses supported the prosecution. The Trial Court in its judgment dated 17.5.1999 held that the evidence of PWs 30 and 33 did not inspire confidence as their conduct appeared to be unnatural which indicated that they had in fact not been present when the murder had been committed. It also observed that in the light of this fact, the other evidence which was largely circumstantial in nature was of little use in securing a conviction. The Trial Court accordingly acquitted all the accused. The State thereupon filed an application under Section 378 of the Cr. P.C. and after leave was granted the matter was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which in its judgment dated 17.8.2005 reversed the judgment of the trial court, convicted the accused and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. The present appeal has been filed as a consequence thereof.
(2.) It has been argued by Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the trial court had acquitted the accused on a minute appreciation of the evidence and arrived at conclusions clearly possible on that evidence and in this circumstance the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal. He has submitted that though the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal was as wide and unfettered as in the case of a conviction appeal yet the presumption that an accused was innocent until proved guilty was further strengthened when the trial court made an order of acquittal and in this view of the matter extra care and caution was required if the acquittal was to be reversed. He has in this connection placed reliance on the judgment in Chandrappa & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka, 2007 3 SCALE 90. The learned counsel has also urged that the entire matter would hinge on the testimony of PWs 30 and 33, and the veracity of their evidence would have to be evaluated under the principles laid down in the afore cited case. He has highlighted that the two were chance witnesses and their conduct was so unnatural that their presence had to be ruled out ab-initio. It has finally been pleaded that in this situation the evidence of motive or recovery of incriminating articles did not connect the accused with the crime and could not by themselves and in isolation form the basis of a conviction.
(3.) Mr. Hegde the learned Government Advocate has however supported the judgment of the High Court and at the very outset pointed out that the trial court s judgment though laboured and lengthy did not deal with the evidence in a systematic manner and the entire discussion on the evidence had been confined to the last four pages whereas the judgment of the High Court had been rendered after a minute re- evaluation of the matter and for very good reasons. He has urged that the matter would have to be examined in the background that the murder appeared to have been committed in the State of Maharashtra and the body recovered in the State of Karnataka and the resulting confusion which would have ensued in such a situation. He has pointed out that the relations between the parties were undoubtedly strained as they represented different political groups and as such the motive for the murder stood proved. It has finally been urged that the circumstantial evidence inasmuch as the recovery of the bicycle, the identification of the tiffin carrier, the jeep etc. supported the prosecution s story.;