High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 905-CrAl-280-25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2025Surekha Ajay Munde,Age 24 years, Occu. Household,R/o Songiri, Tq. Bhoom,District Dharashiv.. Appellant (Original Complainant)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through PSI Bhoom Police Station,Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad(Dharashiv)2.Ajay Shahaji Munde,Age 42 years, Occu. Driver,R/o. Hiwarda, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad..Respondents (R/2-original Accused)Mr. M. S. Karad, Advocate holding for Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocatefor Appellant;Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 06-05-2025PER COURT:-1.By this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, informant who happens to be wife of accused haschallenged the judgment and order passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Bhoom, in Sessions Case No.3 of 2023,dated 02.05.2025, thereby acquitting respondent No.2/accused. 2 905-CrAl-280-25.odt2.It is the prosecution case that the appellant/informantmarried with accused on 19.05.2020. Accused owns Tempo ofEicher company bearing registration No. MH-22-AA-3454. Byrunning a tempo, he ekes out livelihood. After marriage for oneyear, informant was treated properly. Thereafter, ill-treatment wasgiven to her. Therefore, she started residing with her parents atSongiri. She lodged complaint against the in-laws at Bhoom PoliceStation. On the basis of the same, C.R.No.6 of 2022 under Section498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(“IPC”, for short) came to be registered. She also lodgedproceeding against in-laws under the Provisions of Protection ofWomen from Domestic Violence Act in Bhoom Court.3.On 13.05.2022, when informant along with her fatherBabasaheb Kute and brother Rushikesh Kute were returning homefrom Bhoom Court after attending the date, accused and his fatherShahaji Munde accosted them and beat them with fist and kickblows. Abuses were hurled by them and threats were extended tothem. Informant lodged N.C. bearing No.170 of 2022 against theaccused and his father at Bhoom Police Station under Section 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The father-in-law of theinformant also lodged complaint against the informant, her fatherand brother at Bhoom Police Station, which is registeredC.R.No.104 of 2022. 3 905-CrAl-280-25.odt4.On 02.10.2022, when the informant was present in thehouse, her brother Rushikesh Kute and one Shahaji Markad went toRameshwar via village Chincholi at about 8.30 a.m. on motorcyclebearing registration No. MH-13-CD-3539. Approximately, at about9.15 a.m. Balaji Kute, son of paternal aunt of informant came toSongiri and informed the informant that one Tempo bearingregistration No. MH-22-AA-3548 had given dash to the motorcyclewhereon Rushikesh Kute and Shahaji Markad were proceeding,near Chincholi Pati situated on Bhoom to Ieet road. He hadwitnessed the said incident and in the said incident Rushikesh andShahaji were severely injured. He also told that accused wasdriving the said Eicher Tempo and after the incident he left theTempo on the spot and fled away. He further informed that thepeople who gathered at the spot of incident took both the injuredto Government Hospital, Bhoom in ambulance for treatment.Informant and her father rushed to the Government Hospital,Bhoom and injured were taken to Jagdale Mama Hospital at Barshi.During the course of treatment, injured Shahaji Markad expired.After his funeral, informant and her relatives approached BhoomPolice Station to lodge complaint, stating that accused, with intentto kill her brother Rushikesh, gave forcible dash of his Eichertempo to the motorcycle on which Rushikesh and Shahaji Markadwere riding. Due to the said dash, Rushikesh was severely injuredand pillion rider Shahaji Markad was killed. On the basis of said 4 905-CrAl-280-25.odtcomplaint, offence vide C.R.No.237 of 2022 was registered underSections 302 and 307 of the IPC.5.On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.Accused was charged under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.Accused has abjured the guilt.6.In support of the charge, the prosecution examined sevenwitnesses. On considering the evidence on record, the trial Courthas acquitted the accused. Hence, the appeal.7.Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the State.8.Perused the record.9.Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of eyewitnessesRushkesh Babasaheb Kute (PW-2), Balaji Sampatrao Kute (PW-3),Bhagwant Chokha Lokhande (PW-5) and Santosh Vikram Shirke(PW-6). Perusal of evidence of Rushikesh (PW-2) shows that hewas not in a position to give description of the Eicher Tempo whichgave dash to him. His family members told him who is theaccused and also gave him a number of tempo of the accused. Tillthen he was unaware about the accused, the incident and the caselodged against the accused. He has admitted that till he regainedhis consciousness, he was not knowing who was driving thetempo. His statement was recorded when he was admitted in the 5 905-CrAl-280-25.odthospital, but he has not given description of the accused in thesaid statement.10.Balaji (PW-3) has admitted in his cross-examination that he isnot in a position to tell the name of owner of Eicher Tempo andgive the details of model of Eicher tempo. He has further admittedthat after the incident he did not inform Bhoom Police Station or atthe Police Chouki situated in Bhoom Hospital and at the PoliceChouki situated at Barshi that accused was instrumental behindthe incident. 11.Bhagwant (PW-5) cannot be said to be an eyewitness as hehas admitted that after the incident, on hearing the noise, he wentat the spot of the incident. He admitted that he had not seen theface of tempo driver. 12.Santosh (PW-6) was not knowing the accused and he did notwitness the incident.13.It is clear from the evidence of informant Surekha (PW-1)that immediately after the incident in question she was informedby Balaji (PW-3) that her husband i.e. accused had given dash ofhis Eicher Tempo to the motorcycle of her brother. It is pertinent tonote that she did not lodge the complaint when the police werepresent in hospital at Bhoom, in the hospital at Barshi and at thetime of funeral of deceased Shahaji. 6 905-CrAl-280-25.odt14.Babasaheb (PW-4) had admitted that accused has given hisTempos on rent at Latur and Murud and his tempos were runningon Latur-Murud road. 15.The trial Court has observed that on minute scrutiny ofevidence of prosecution it appears that the prosecution has utterlyfailed to establish that accused was driving the Eicher Tempo atthe time of the incident in question and in order to commit theirmurder, he gave dash of said Eicher Tempo to the motorcyclewhereon Rushikesh and deceased Shahaji were proceeding. It isevident from the evidence available on record that deceasedShahaji had died in the accident and likewise Rushikesh (PW2)sustained injuries in the said accident. The evidence available onrecord shows that defense by accused appears to be possible. 16.The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence andhas passed a well reasoned judgment while acquitting theaccused. No case is made out by the appellant to interfere withthe impugned judgment. The criminal appeal being devoid ofmerits, stands dismissed. [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE JUDGErrd