High Court
Legal Reasoning
CriAppeal-663-2005+-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 663 OF 2005The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station,Nanded (Rural), Taluka and District Nanded.… Appellant(Ori. Complainant)Versus1.Jagannath Kishanlal KutiyawaleAge 51 years, Occupation Labour,R/o. Wajegaon, Taluka and District Nanded.2.Narayan Kishanlal KutiyawaleAge 40 years, Occupation Labour,R/o. Wajegaon, Taluka and District Nanded.3.Parasram @ Guddu Jagannath KutiyawaleAge 21 years, Occupation Labour,R/o. Wajegaon, Taluka and District Nanded.… Respondents(Ori. Accused)…..Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Appellant-State.Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for the Respondents.…..WITHCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2005Gangaram s/o Chotulal BhatawaleAge 44 years, Occupation Agriculturist,R/o Vasarni, Taluka and District Nanded.… Applicant(Ori. Complainant)Versus
Legal Reasoning
CriAppeal-663-2005+-2- 1.The State of Maharashtrathrough Police Station Nanded(Rural), Taluka and District Nanded.2.Jagannath Kishanlal KutiyawaleAge 51 years, Occupation Labour,R/o. Wajegaon, Taluka and District Nanded.3.Narayan Kishanlal KutiyawaleAge 40 years, Occupation Labour,R/o. Wajegaon, Taluka and District Nanded.4.Parasram @ Guddu Jagannath KutiyawaleAge 21 years, Occupation Labour,R/o. Wajegaon, Taluka and District Nanded.… Respondents…..Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent No.1-State.Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 30.07.2025Pronounced on: 11.08.2025JUDGMENT : 1.The State takes exception to the judgment and order dated30.11.2004 passed by learned JMFC, III Court, Nanded in RCC No.859 of 2001, thereby acquitting the present respondents from chargeunder Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. CriAppeal-663-2005+-3- 2.The original complainant has also preferred separate revisionapplication challenging the acquittal as above.FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN TRIAL COURT3.On 16.06.2001, complainant Gangaram, while was in thecompany of his two sons, namely, Pawan and Nitin, was questionedby the accused for coming into the land and in such background it isalleged that complainant was assaulted. When his sons came to hisrescue, they were also assaulted and therefore he filed FIR resultinginto registration of crime bearing no. 166/2001 for offencespunishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Aftercompletion of investigation, all three accused were chargesheeted andtried by learned JMFC vide RCC No. 859 of 2001.4.In support of its case, prosecution adduced evidence of in all sixwitnesses, including the medical expert. Oral and documentary evidence was appreciated and afterhearing each side, learned trial court, by judgment and order dated30.11.2004, acquitted the accused. Hence the appeal. CriAppeal-663-2005+-4- SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of the Appellant-State as well as the Revisionist-complainant :5.Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the revisionist, whois the original complainant, took this Court through the evidence ofcomplainant PW2 and would submit that, the FIR was promptlylodged by this witness. That, he had categorically stated in thewitness box that accused persons initially questioned him and his sonsfor coming to the land. Thereafter, when he and his sons went intothe office of one Maroti Nalge, all accused persons came there,dragged complainant out of the office and, it is alleged that, he wasbeaten by means of chain, kicks and fist blows by accused Jagannathand Guddu. They pointed out that complainant has deposed that evenhis sons, who came to save him, were beaten. That, they were takento the hospital and examined. Report was lodged promptly. Accordingto learned APP and learned counsel for the revisionist, the core of thetestimony of complainant regarding assault has remained unshaken inthe cross. They further pointed out that, there is support to thetestimony of PW2 complainant through his sons, who were alsoexamined. They pointed out that injuries were severe and therefore,complainant as well as his sons were referred to medical expert who CriAppeal-663-2005+-5- has also stepped into the witness box. Thus, according to them, all theingredients for attracting the charges were available, but only due toimproper appreciation, the trial has ended up in acquittal, and hencethey seek indulgence by allowing the appeal and the revision.On behalf of the Respondents-accused :6.In answer to above, learned counsel for the respondents-original accused would submit that prosecution miserably failed.That, witnesses are not consistent. That, medical expert has expressedpossibility of injury due to fall, There being civil dispute, parties wereon cross terms and hence, there is false implication. Therefore,according to him, there is no infirmity or perversity in theappreciation at the hands of the trial court. He therefore prays todismiss the appeal as well as the revision for want of merits.ANALYSIS7.Respondents-original accused were chargesheeted forcommission of offence punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC.Here, though prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses,crucial evidence is that of complainant PW2-Gangaram and his twosons i.e. PW3-Pawan and PW4-Nitin. CriAppeal-663-2005+-6- 8.On re-analysis and re-appreciation, it is emerging that case setup by complainant is that, when he and his sons were taking round intheir field around 5.00 p.m. on the relevant day, accused personsquestioned him for coming to the field and then, it is alleged that, hewas assaulted by accused causing him bleeding injuries. Even report islodged on the same day and prosecution has also, in support of caseof injury, examined medical expert PW6. 9.Specific defence taken by respondents-accused in trial court isthat, there being civil dispute and animosity, there is falseimplication; there was no assault as alleged and rather, injuriessuffered by complainant could be self inflicted and complainantcontradicts himself regarding site of alleged assault and injury. That,no independent witness, in spite of availability, is examined andthough PW3 and PW4 are examined, it is their case in trial court that,they were not present at the time of alleged occurrence and are thusgot up witnesses and being interested witnesses, case of prosecutioncomes under shadow of doubt. 10.On above lines, if evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 is put tominute scrutiny, as submitted, it does emerge that in the FIR, CriAppeal-663-2005+-7- complainant has reported that while he alone was roaming in thefield, accused questioned him and thereafter assaulted him bydragging him out of the office of one Maroti Nalge. At least in thecomplaint, he does not refer about his both sons accompanying him atthe time of assault. He has named his son Pawan only to have come tohis rescue and not the other son Nitin. No doubt, it is settled positionthat FIR not being encyclopedia and on mere failure to name otherwitnesses, case of prosecution cannot be doubted, however, here,peculiar facts are that, complainant has in his evidence at Exhibit 24testified about he and his both sons taking round in the field and thattime accused questioning them and initially assaulting him andthereafter even assaulting his sons. Therefore, there being specificallegation of assault not only to him, but also to his sons, it wasexpected of him to even refer about their presence in the FIR.However, the same is not appearing so. 11.Even on close scrutiny of complainant’s evidence, it is clearlyemerging that he has attributed questioning to all accused personswho are in fact three in number. He has not given details about whichamongst the three accused questioned him. There cannot bequestioning in chorus. He, in his evidence, has further stated thatbecause accused Jagannath was maneuvering cycle chain in his hand, CriAppeal-663-2005+-8- out of fright, he went to the office of Maroti Nalge, but accused camethere also and he was allegedly taken out of the office and thenaccused assaulted him. He has stated that accused Jagannath,Narayan and Guddu lifted him and flung him on the floor, accusedJagannath hit him by means of chain on the right side of his headwhereas, accused Guddu hit him by means chain on the left side of hishead.In cross, omissions are brought to the extent of he beingaccompanied by his sons Pawan and Nitin i.e. PW3 and PW4; accusedpersons asking why he came to the land; accused Jagannathmaneuvering or rotating chain; he being pulled out of the office andflung on the floor. These are material omissions. He claims that hisclothes were also blood stained but unfortunately the same are notseized and there is no CA report of the same. 12.PW3 and PW4 are sons of complainant and they are examinedat Exhibits 26 and 27 respectively. On scrutiny of evidence of thesetwo witnesses, it is noticed that PW3 Pawan has not stated about hisfather being lifted and then banged on the floor. Though he statedthat accused Jagannath assaulted his father by cycle chain, he hasstated about Guggd taking the chain from Jagannath and assaulting CriAppeal-663-2005+-9- his father and thereafter, he and his brother also were assaulted byfists and blows and they were threatened to kill. Such part of beingthreatened to kill is not stated by his father complainant. Even in hiscross, omissions are brought about he accompanying his father andbrother, about Narayan making his father fall.Likewise, in cross of PW4 Nitin, omissions are brought about heand his father roaming in the field; accused Jagannath to be armedwith chain and therefore, out of fear, they going to the office ofMaroti Nalge.13.Therefore, from above evidence of father and his two sons,their evidence is found to be full of material omissions. As statedabove, complainant had not informed police about he to beaccompanied by his both sons. In the light of their testimonydiscussed above, it is doubtful whether they were accompanying theirfather.14.Though learned APP harped on the availability of medicalevidence, according to the complainant, he was assaulted by means ofchain on the right and left side of the head. However, medicalevidence shows injuries suffered on the right frontal region and mid CriAppeal-663-2005+-10- parietal region. Therefore, as stated by learned counsel for therespondents, though there is medical evidence as well as injurycertificate, it is contrary to the evidence of complainant.15.As stated above, witnesses have admitted about civil disputeand previous animosity. There is failure on the part of prosecution toexamine independent witness Maroti Nalge, exactly at whose officealleged assault is stated to have occurred. No independent witness isexamined. Due to failure of complainant to refer presence of his twosons PW3 and PW4 in the FIR, there is reason to hold that they arenot party to the alleged occurrence.16.It is incumbent upon prosecution to discharge the primaryburden of establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. A slightestdoubt, if crops up, is sufficient to extend benefit to the accused. Here,as stated above, evidence of complainant and his two sons is notconsistent. Medical evidence does not lend support to the prosecutionversion. Recovery of alleged chain is at the instance of accused no.2Guddu, that too, after two days. Spot is also not proved. Therefore,there are several aspects which brings case of prosecution undershadow of doubt. CriAppeal-663-2005+-11- 17.Perused the judgment. The learned trial court has consideredeach and every aspect of the prosecution case as well as the legalrequirements for bringing home the charge, and has rightly reachedto the conclusion about failure of prosecution to prove its case beyondreasonable doubt and thus, entitlement of accused for benefit ofdoubt. Bearing in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Courtwhile dealing with appeal against acquittal, this Court finds no meritin the appeal. 18.Learned counsel for original complainant has also preferredrevision against acquittal. However, for above reasons, this Courtfinds no reason to interfere in revision. Hence, following order ispassed :ORDERThe Criminal Appeal as well as the Criminal RevisionApplication are hereby dismissed. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre