High Court

Legal Reasoning

-1- Revn.367.2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 20231.Smt. Vatchalabai W/o. Rangnath Korde, Age : 76 years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.… Applicant(Orig. Informant)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Senior Police Inspector,Police Station, Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.2.Krushna Jijabhau Korde,Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agril.,R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.3.Radhabai Krushna Korde,Age : 42 years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. 4.Prabhu Jijabhau Korde, Age : 43 years, Occu. : Agril., R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.… Respondents.……Mr. Md. Samiuddin M.Y. Choudhari, Advocate for Applicant.Mr. V.M. Chate, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.Mr. Shubham Kote h/f. Mr. Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate forRespondent Nos.2 to 4.……CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 12 FEBRUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 21 FEBRUARY, 2025 -2- Revn.367.2023JUDGMENT : 1.Revisionist takes an exception to judgment and orderpasse by learned trial court and first appellate court in R.C.C.No.15 of 2009 dated 09.03.2020 and Criminal Appeal No.29 of2020 dated 18.08.2023 acquitting respondents from chargesunder sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IndianPenal Code.BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE2.Informant PW1 Vatchalabai lodged complaint Exh.81alleging that on the night of 24.12.2008 respondent accused no.2Radhabai threw waste water in complainant’s area. Whencomplainant went to question her about it, at that time, Radhabai,Pandhari, Krushna and Prabhu initially abused her and thereafterit is alleged that respondent Prabhu hit her with stick; Pandhari,Krushna and Radhabai made her fall and gave kicks and fist blows.When husband of complainant, namely Rangnath, one Subhash andtheir son Dnyandeo came to separate, it is alleged that accusedbeat them also. In the episode, complainant suffered head injuryand therefore, on her report, police registered crime bearing No.120 of 2008 for offence punishable under sections 326, 325, 324,323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they were made to face trialvide R.C.C. No. 15 of 2009. -3- Revn.367.20233.After appreciating the prosecution evidence, learnedJ.M.F.C. Partur vide judgment and order dated 09.03.2020acquitted accused from all charges. Against acquittal complainant preferred CriminalAppeal bearing No. 29 of 2020 before learned Additional SessionsJudge-4, Jalna. After hearing both sides, learned first appellatecourt confirmed the judgment and order passed by learned J.M.F.C.in R.C.C. No. 15 of 2009 and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal at the hands of both,learned trial court as well as first appellate court, originalinformant - complainant has preferred instant revision. SUBMISSIONS4.Learned counsel for revisionist submits that, thefundamental grounds raised in revision are that, both, learned trialcourt as well as first appellate court failed to appreciate the oraland documentary evidence in its proper perspective. Secondly,evidence of prosecution witnesses was full-proof and had remainedintact and unshaken in spite of extensive cross on the point ofoccurrence and assault. That, occurrence was proved throughcomplainant, her son and even through the evidence of Rangnath. -4- Revn.367.2023Their testimonies are unfortunately disbelieved. That, there wereinjuries on the person of complainant including fracture andmedical expert was also examined by prosecution, but even suchoverwhelming and corroborating evidence has not beenappreciated by learned trial Judge as well as first appellate court.That, judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. That, thereis improper appreciation and non consideration of the settled legalprinciples. According to learned counsel, required ingredients forattracting the offence were very much available in the prosecutionevidence, but still accused are acquitted without assigning soundreasons for disbelieving their evidence. Hence, learned counselseeks indulgence at the hands of this court by allowing therevision.5.In answer to above, learned APP and learned counselfor respondent Nos.2 to 4 while supporting the judgments of both,learned trial court as well as first appellate court, would submitthat, prosecution has miserably failed to adduce convincing andindependent evidence. That, there is false implication. That,witnesses are inconsistent and their testimonies are full ofmaterial omissions, contradictions and exaggeration. That, medicalevidence also does not support informant’s version. That, therewas delayed reporting. That, seizures were not promptly -5- Revn.367.2023dispatched to analyzer. It is pointed out that, none of the panchawitnesses have supported and therefore learned counsel canvassesin the favour of findings reached at by both, learned trial court aswell as first appellate court and prays to dismiss the revision forwant of merits.6.After hearing submissions of each of the side and on re-appreciating the evidence and papers on record, it is emergingthat, R.C.C. No.15 of 2009 was in consequence to crime registeredby PW1 Vatchalabai. Papers show that, in support of it, apart fromdocumentary evidence, prosecution has adduced in all 9 witnesses.Crucial evidence is of PW1 Vatchalabai, PW2 Rangnath, PW3Dnyandeo and PW6 Dr. Dnyandeo Nawal, a Medical Officer. PW4Babu and PW5 Datta seem to be panchas, PW8 is a witness,whereas rest of the witnesses seem to be police personnel.ANALYSIS7.Reanalyzed the evidence of PW1 complainant, PW2Rangnath and PW3 Dnyandeo, who are examined at Exh.80, 84and 105 respectively. Substance of accusation of informant is thaton the night of 24.12.2008 around 8:30 p.m., accused Radhabaithrew waste water in her premises and therefore she went toquestion it and thereafter it is alleged that she was initially abusedby all three accused and she was hit by means of stick by accusedno.3 son of accused no.1, causing her head injury. -6- Revn.367.20238.Evidence of PW1 complainant, PW2 Rangnath and PW3Dnyandeo is consistent only about occurrence taking place on thenight of 24.12.2008. However, on minute scrutiny it does emergethat witnesses are not consistent and lending support to each otheron events that took place. According to informant, she alone wentto question with accused no.2 Radhabai. However, contrary to it,PW2 Rangnath her husband claims that he also went along withher. As pointed out, what were the abuses, has not been narratedby any of the witnesses. Though complainant claims that shesuffered head injury, regarding it FIR shows insertion by way ofink of which Investigating Officer could not offer any explanation.PSO, who noted report is not examined to prove the subsequentinsertion. Therefore, there is force in the submissions that contentsof FIR are interpolated and exaggerated. Surprisingly, furtherevidence of very son of informant and PW2 seems to be full ofmaterial omissions. PW2 Rangnath himself testified and admittedthat his statement was not recorded by police.9.Medical evidence PW6 Dr. Dnyandeo though deposedabout noticing fracture, however, he has in his evidence admittedregarding not carrying x-ray report which was essential fordrawing inference of causing grievous injury. Moreover, -7- Revn.367.2023subsequently, x-ray report has been brought on record and itssource is not demonstrated. Medical expert has admitted injury onthe informant to be possible on account of fall. Panchas to spothave not supported. Articles though shown to be seized duringinvestigation were shown to be produced after four years of theoccurrence creating doubt about the very seizure. Presence ofhusband PW2 Rangnath and son PW3 Dnyandeo also comes undershadow of doubt. In spite of availability of neighbourhood to thehouse of informant as well as house of accused, there is noindependent witness. Though law does not require corroborationthrough only independent witness, still evidence of prosecutionwitnesses, who are family members, should at least be consistentand lending support to each other. Above discussion shows that,statement of PW2 Rangnath was not recorded. Evidence of PW3Dnyandeo carries material omissions and therefore, findingprosecution evidence to be weak, initially learned trial court didnot accept the prosecution case. 10.On re-appreciation, even first appellate court found nofault or perversity in the manner of appreciation at the hands oflearned trial court. 11.Here also, in revision, no infirmity or perversity, which -8- Revn.367.2023is so patent and which has not been appreciated, is brought to thenotice so as to interfere in the view taken by both, learned trialcourt as well as first appellate court. Evidence of prosecution beingweak and fragile, both learned courts below rightly refused toaccept the same. 12.For above reasons, no case being made out in revision,the same is dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale