High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2006The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station,Limbgaon, Dist. Nanded.… AppellantVersus1.Ramrao Kishan Bhosale,Age : 42 years, Occu. : Agri.,2.Shankerrao Kishan Bhosale, Age : 30 years, Occu. : Agri.,3.Laxman Kishan Bhosale, Age : 35 years, Occu. : Agri.,4.Kishan Bhujangrao Bhosale,Age : 70 years, Occu. : Agri.,All R/o. Waghi… Respondent.…..Mr. N. D. Batule, APP for Appellant.Mr. G. D. Kale, Advocate for Respondents.…..CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 31 JULY 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 14 AUGUST 2025JUDGMENT : 1.The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated17.10.2005 is questioned by State by which learned J.M.F.C. Nandedacquitted respondents from offence punishable under sections 324,504, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt-2-2.Present respondents were charge-sheeted on the premisethat, on 01.01.2002, PW1 Satwaji was taking lunch at his own houseat around 2:00 p.m. His grandson PW2 Kalidas came and informedhim about scuffle going on in the field between accused persons andhis son Baliram. When he rushed there and questioned accused, it isalleged that accused Rama gave stick blow on his head causingbleeding injury. He claims to have approached Limbgaon PoliceStation, which allegedly referred him to the hospital. After which helodged report at Exh.20 resulting into registration of crime. PW5 P.I. Mohd. Giyauddin carried out investigation andafter gathering sufficient evidence, charge-sheeted accused andaccused persons were made to face trial before learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Nanded, wherein oral evidence of in all fivewitnesses on behalf of prosecution and documentary evidence wereadduced. Defence also adduced one witness. After hearing argumentsof both sides, learned trial Judge was pleased to reject the case ofprosecution and acquit the accused.SUBMISSIONS3.Learned APP criticizing the judgment and order andwould submits that there was overwhelming and clinching evidenceabout occurrence. That, informant himself was an injured. He hadseen accused persons scuffling with his son, and therefore, he has Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt-3-questioned the accused. That, accused Rama assaulted him by meansof stick causing him bleeding injury. Learned APP pointed out that,in support of injury, PW4 Dr. Uday Patil has been examined andinjury certificate is also placed on record. He further pointed outthat, there is another one child witness PW2 Kalidas, who alsoaccompanying the complainant and he has supported the testimonyof PW1 informant. Therefore, according to learned APP, there wascogent and convincing evidence regarding the occurrence. He pointedout that, there is civil dispute between the accused and complainant,who are adjoining neighbours with each other. That, evidence of PW1informant and PW2 Kalidas has remained unshaken. That, there isalso evidence of PW3 independent witness and thus according tolearned APP, prosecution’s evidence was liable to be accepted to holdthe charges proved, but the learned trial court failed to correctlyappreciate the same and erred in rejecting the case. Hence, he seeksinterference.4.Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submitthat, there is false implication. That, there was animosity due to civildispute. That, there is no corroboration to the evidence ofcomplainant. He pointed out that, injuries suffered is admitted bydoctor to be possible due to fall. That, evidence of PW2 child witnesshas been rightly discarded by learned trial court in view of testimony
Legal Reasoning
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt-4-of DW1. He further pointed out that there were independentwitnesses, none of them have been examined. As the essentialingredients of none of the sections under which the accused werecharge-sheeted were available, learned counsel for respondentcanvasses in support of the acquittal and urges dismissal of theappeal for want of merits. EVIDENCE ON RECORD5.Re-appreciated and re-analyzed the evidence. As stated,prosecution evidence is comprises of 05 witnesses. PW1 Satwajiinformant, who is examined at Exh.19; PW2 Kalidas, child witness,who is examined at Exh.26; PW3 Rameshwar, panch witness, who isexamined at Exh.27; PW4 Dr. Uday Patil, medical expert, who isexamined at Exh.29 and PW5 P.I. Mohd. Giyauddin is theInvestigating Officer.ANALYSIS6.Crucial evidence is only of informant PW1 Satwaji andPW2 Kalidas. PW1 informant in his testimony has narrated aboutgetting news from his grandson PW2 Kalidas regarding scuffle goingon between accused and his son Baliram and therefore, informantrushed to the spot and for questioning about the scuffle and beating,it is alleged that accused Rama hit a stick blow on the head ofinformant. PW2 Kalidas is also examined to lend support to theevidence of PW1 informant. He has also stated about being present at Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt-5-the field with his mother and seeing scuffle running towards village toinform his grandfather and they both allegedly came. However, indefence DW1 Venkatrao is examined, who is school teacher and hehas produced on record the attendance register. The extract ofattendance register shows that on particular day PW2 was present inthe school. Therefore, there is evidence suggesting PW2 Kalidas to bein the school rather than in the field. Surprisingly, injured Baliramwith whom there was scuffle, does not seem to have examined, for thebest reasons known to the prosecution. Even the persons, whoallegedly indulged, are not examined. PW3 Rameshwar is the spotpanch, but he has not supported the prosecution. Therefore, virtuallythere is no independent evidence supporting the case of PW1informant. 7.Another undisputed aspect is that, in spite of occurrencetaking place on 01.01.2002 and in spite of complainant attributingbeating to other family members, they are also not examined. Eventhough he has claimed that other two family members wereexamined by Doctor, they have not accompanied him on the sameday. As pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, thoughcomplainant claims to have approached police and police had furtherreferred him to medical examination, medical expert has candidlyadmitted that PW1 has come on his own and there was no referral by Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt-6-police. Doctor has admitted possibility of injury due to fall. Stick isnot recovered. 8.Therefore, in the light of such evidence on record, learnedtrial Judge has refused to accept the case of prosecution as it is notproved beyond reasonable doubt, more particularly, when there isanimosity, then caliber of evidence has to be on higher side. Bearingin mind the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing withappeal against acquittal, this court does not find any infirmity orillegality in the impugned Judgment. No case for interference beingmade out, I proceed to pass following order :ORDERThe appeal stands dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale