CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.214 OF 2014
Gurudas s/o Sadaram Bansod,
Member, Baudha Samaj & Baudha
Amrapali Mahila Mandal, Kondhala
Aged about 44 years,
Occupation-Labourer,
R/o. Kondhala, Tahsil-Desaiganj (Wadsa),
District-Gadchiroli. .. APPELLANT
.. VERSUS ..
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Desaiganj,
District-Gadchiroli.
2] Kailas s/o Tukaram Rane,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation-Cultivator.
3] Pandhari s/o Tulshiram Nakhate,
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation-Cultivator.
4] Ravindra s/o Antaji Behare,
Aged about 54 years,
Occupation-Cultivaror.
5] Namdeo s/o Dinaji Wasake,
Aged about 25 years,
Occupation-Cultivaror.
6] Bhagwat s/o Pisaram Meshram,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation-Cultivator.
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 :::
CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 2
7] Wasudeo s/o Domaji Tuppat,
Aged about 52 years,
Occupation-Cultivator.
8] Umesh s/o Dadaji Raut,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation-Cultivator.
9] Sunil s/o Pundalik Pardhi,
Aged about 31 years,
Occupation-Cultivator.
10] Vilas s/o Baburao Dhore,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation-Cultivator,
All R/o. Kondhala, Tah. Desaiganj,
Police Station, Desaiganj,
District-Gadchiroli. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri A.S. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Appellant,
Shri I.J. Damle, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State,
Shri V.N. Morande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 10.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : APRIL 03, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.12.2013 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Special (Atrocity) Case No.1/2010. By the said judgment and order, ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 ::: CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 3 respondent nos.2 to 10-original accused came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)
(x) (iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2] Prosecution case which can be revealed from the chargesheet and connecting papers thereto may be stated in brief as under :
(a) On 12.10.2005, people of village Kondhala were to celebrate Dhamma Chakra Parivartan Din. On 11.10.2005, pendal was erected near Ambedkar Square of the village. Allegations against the accused are that they entered in the pendal and dismantled the same by uttering abuses to complainant and his associates in the name of caste. Report was lodged with Desaiganj Police Station. Crime No.74/2005 was registered against the accused. Investigation was taken over by S.D.P.O. Ravindrasing Santoshsing Pardeshi.
(b) Investigating officer visited the place of occurrence and recorded spot panchanama. ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 ::: CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 4 During the course of investigation, statements of other witnesses were recorded. On completing investigation, chargesheet was filed before the concerned court.
3] Charge of the alleged offence was explained to the accused by the trial court. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of total denial and false implication in view of previous enmity.
4] Prosecution examined in all six witnesses to substantiate the alleged guilt of the accused. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submissions made on behalf of the parties, trial court came to the conclusion that offences alleged against the accused were not established beyond reasonable doubt and in consequence thereof, accused were acquitted. Being aggrieved, one of the complainants has come up before this court in the present appeal.
5] Heard Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for appellant, Shri Damle, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1-State and Shri Morande, learned ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 ::: CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 5 counsel for respondent nos.2 to 10.
6] On meticulous evaluation of the evidence on record and submissions made on behalf of the parties, this court, for the below mentioned reasons, finds no perversity or illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
7] It can be seen from the report (Exh.47) lodged by the present appellant that no specific abuses, as allegedly uttered by the accused, have been stated in FIR. Only omnibus statements are made and allegations are that accused intentionally dismantled the pendal and abused complainant and others in the name of their caste. No specific role is attributed to each of the accused. Though FIR appears to have been lodged on 12.10.2005, time of alleged FIR is missing in the report Exh.47. From the evidence of PW-3 Laxapati, it can be seen that FIR was lodged on 12.10.2005 at 9.00 pm. Desaiganj Police Station is at the distance of around 5-7 km from village Kondhala.
Incident occurred on 11.10.2005 between 7-7.30 pm. Previous enmity between the parties is admitted in the cross-examination of complainant and other witnesses. In this background, the trial court in paragraph nos.17, 18 and ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 ::: CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 6 19 made the following observations :
17. By keeping the evidence of Investigation Officer aside, it has to be noted that at first the report vide Exh.47 shows that, on the date of incident the police personnel were present at the spot. The complainants have made allegations that, the accused have dismantled and torn the pendal in presence of police. This fact is fortified by P.W.5 Shrawan. The portion mark 'A' of the complaint certainly shows that. at the time of incident police have intervened the matter. It has to be noted that, if at all the pendal was torn by the accused in presence of police, then police were in a position a launch the prosecution against the accused on their own accord. However, the attending circumstances, shows that, the panchanama drawn vide Exh.45 does not show the picture of damaged pendal. Admittedly, the said pendal was owned by Maroti Tupat, who has not raised any complaint before the police or even he is not cited as a witness. This fact goes to show that, the pendal was not dismantled or torn by any person. The prosecution has failed to establish the fact that, the accused have dismantled or torn the said pendawl.
18. It is evident to say that, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated what an exact act was done by the accused. It is very easy to say that, accused have torn and dismantled the pendal, but it is very difficult to digest. It is also to be seen that, the evidence of P.W.6 I.O. shows that, he had entered on the spot on 13.10.2005. It means, after lapse of two days the I.O., has entered down the spot. At that time nothing was found on the spot. The I.O. has not enquired to Maroti Tupat in respect of his pendal. The I.O. could have interrogated to him, but in absence of the statement of pendal owner, it is very difficult to assume that, the accused have torn the pendal. In this sequence it is also to be seen ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 ::: CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 7 that, the evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that, when the work of erection of pendal was going on, there were several labours of Maroti Tupat working. If at all the accused have demolished that pendal then those labours were required to be arrayed as witnesses in the present matter. The I.O., has not taken any pain to record the statements of either the pendal owner Maroti Tupat or the concerned labours. In absence of this evidence it is very difficult to say that the prosecution story is reasonable.
19. On scanning the entire prosecution evidence, it appears that, the parties are having enemical terms. There were 2-3 groups in the village. Group of accused is rival group of the complainant's group. More particularly, there is dispute on account of Shahid Smark. So, this enmity has invited to launch the prosecution case against the accused. The evidence adduced by prosecution is very much deficient. There is no clinching evidence against the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused have made abuses to the complainant and other witnesses. The prosecution has also failed to establish the fact that, the accused have demolished or torn the pendawl, which was to be used for 'Dhamma Chakra Parivartan Din'. The investigation carried by the investigation officer is faulty. He has not recorded statements of necessary witnesses. Even, the I.O., has not recorded the statements of neighbourers to the spot. In all the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled to acquittal. Consequently, I answer all the points accordingly and pass the following order.
8] This court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, has gone through the evidence ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 ::: CRI. APPEAL NO.214.14.odt 8 adduced by the prosecution. The evidence is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Not only this several infirmities and deficiencies brought in the cross-examination of complainant PW-2 Gurudas Bansod, eyewitnesses PW-3 Laxapati Khobragade, PW-4 Smt. Pushpa Dhakade, PW-5 Shrawan Tembhurne and a witness on spot panchanama PW-1 Tarachand Meshram go to the root of substratum of prosecution case.
9] In the above premise, view taken by the Trial court is reasonable and possible view. No perversity or illegality is noticed in the reasonings recorded by the Trial court. Thus no interference is warranted in appeal. Hence, Criminal Appeal No.214/2014 stands dismissed. No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) Gulande, PA ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 00:48:17 :::