1 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2004
State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Officer,
Karanja, Taluka - Karanja,
District - Akola. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
Ramdas s/o Ratan Pund,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Dudhora, Tq. Karanja,
District - Akola. .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Ms. Trupti Udeshi, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the appellant,
Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2004
Gopal Laxmanrao Pund,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Dudhora, Tahsil - Karanja,
District - Washim. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Karanja.
2) Ramdas s/o Ratan Pund,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Dudhora, Tq. Karanja,
District - Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::
2 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04
___________________________________________________________
None for the appellant,
Ms. Trupti Udeshi, Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondent 1,
Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for respondent 2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 7 & 8 th DECEMBER, 2017 th DATED : 11 DECEMBER, 2017 th DATED : 13 DECEMBER, 2017 th ORAL JUDGMENT :
The State is in appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 01-12-2003 in Criminal Appeal 12/1998 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Washim, which reverses the judgment of conviction dated 31-3-1998 in Regular Criminal Case 19/1996 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karanja, by and under which the accused is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 342, 440, 355, 504 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Criminal Revision 10/2004 is preferred by the complainant Gopal Laxmanrao Pund. It is stated at the bar that the revisionist is no more. A praecipe is also placed on record. The statement is accepted and the Criminal Revision Application 10/2004 is disposed of as abated.
3. Ms. Trupti Udeshi, the learned Additional Public ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 ::: 3 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 Prosecutor for the State submits that the reversing judgment of acquittal dangerously borders on perversity and is against the weight of the evidence on record. The learned appellate Court committed serious error in reversing the judgment of conviction, is the submission.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused Shri R.S. Kurekar who appears in Criminal Appeal 54/2004 and Criminal Revision Application 10/2004 would submit that there is no compelling reason demonstrated to warrant interference in the judgment of the acquittal. The findings recorded are not perverse and the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a possible view, is the submission. My attention is invited to the position of law, which is too well settled that unless the judgment of acquittal is demonstrably perverse, ordinarily, the High Court ought not to interfere in the judgment of acquittal.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record and the contentions of the learned Counsel, and having done so, I do not find any merit in the appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not only a possible view, is the only view which could have been taken in the teeth of the evidence on record. Au contraire, the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is clearly perverse to the extent ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 ::: 4 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 440 of the Indian Penal Code without an iota of evidence on record and indeed without any witness even alleging, that the accused committed mischief within the meaning of Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. I refrain from making any further observation and deem it appropriate to exercise judicial restraint.
6. The gist of the oral report which activated the wheels of investigation is that the complainant Gopal Laxman Pund and P.W.2 Ramrao, the Sarpanch of the village, were induced to visit the house of the accused. The accused initially visited the house of the complainant, told the complainant that he was called by the sarpanch, the accused asked his wife to visit the house of the sarpanch and fetch him.
7. The Sarpanch Ramrao Pandey and the complainant Gopal accompanied the accused to his house, the accused was about to close the door when the sister of the complainant Narmadatai came and asked the accused as to why the accused was detaining and beating the complainant. The accused pushed Narmadatai, asked her to leave the scene and threatened to cause her physical harm, then closed the door from inside. The accused assaulted the complainant with slaps and fist blows, made him remove the shirt and the full pant at the point of ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 ::: 5 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 spear, tied the hands of the complainant with nylon rope, cut his hair, applied gulal, put a garland of tomatoes around the neck of the complainant, and paraded the complainant on each and every road in the village. The report states that the complainant was forced to submit since the accused was continuously pricking the back of the complainant with the spear and holding the rope. The sister of the complainant Narmadatai was moving with the complainant and the accused and was requesting the accused to leave the complainant alone. Many persons from the village were witnesses to the incident including the Sarpanch and some villagers made an attempt to intervene in it. Ramdas threatened them with murder. The complainant states that after he was humiliated and forced to walk on every road, he was made to stand in front of the house of the accused who returned the clothes and untied the hands. The accused threatened the complainant and asked him to leave the village.
8. On the basis of the said report, offences punishable under sections 342, 355, 292, 504 and 506 of IPC were registered at the Karanja Police Station. The completion of investigation led to submission of the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karanja. The learned Magistrate framed charge vide Exh.9 for offence punishable under sections 342, 355, 292, 504 and 506 of IPC. ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::
6 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 31.03.1998 was pleased to convict the respondent for offence punsihable under sections 342, 440, 355, 504 and 506 (II) of the IPC and was pleased to sentence the respondent as follows:
Section Period
342 of IPC R.I. for three months and fine of
Rs.500/-.
440 of IPC R.I. for one year and fine of
Rs.500/-.
355 of IPC R.I. for three months and fine of
Rs.500/-
504 of IPC R.I. for three months and fine of
Rs.500/-
506 (II) of IPC R.I. for six months and fine of
Rs.500/-
10. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the respondent-accused preferred Criminal Appeal 12/1998 which is decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on 01.12.2003, by and under which, the respondent-accused is acquitted of all the offences, which is the judgment and order impugned assailed in the appeal.
11. I have scrutinized the evidence on record closely and ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 ::: 7 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 having done so, I have no hesitation in observing that the prosecution case is improbable and suspect. Be it noted, that although, the complainant contends that when he was forced to walk on each and every road of the village at the point of spear, the humiliating parade was followed by the sister of the complainant Narmadabai, who is cited as witness. However, for reasons well known to the prosecution, she is not examined. PW 1 - Gopal and PW 2 - Rama are influential persons. PW 2 Rama was then the Sarpanch. The version of PW 1 and PW 2 that they were summoned to the house of the accused, the accused tied both the hands of PW 1 - Gopal by nylon rope cut the hair and sprinkled Gulal, undressed PW 1 - Rama and then took him in a humiliating procession on each and every road of the village, without PW 1 and PW 2 resisting, is held to be highly improbable and indeed unbelievable, by the learned Sessions Judge. I am inclined to agree. The explanation that the accused threatened PW 1 and PW 2 with spear deserves to be noted only for rejection. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed and appreciated the evidence in paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgment and the said appreciation is unexceptionable. The learned Sessions Judge has noted that it was well nigh impossible for the accused to constantly hold the spear in one hand and with the other free hand to assault the PW 1, fetch a nylon rope and tie the hands of PW 1, cut the hair of PW 1 and force PW 1 to undress and ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:24 ::: 8 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 thereafter to force PW 1 out of the house and parade him in a procession. The learned Sessions Judge has noted, and rightly so, that in the social hierarchy PW 1 and PW 2 who were member and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat were on a higher pedestal as compared to the accused. PW 1 and PW 2 were persons of status and who were even physically of the same age as that of the accused and were robust.
The learned Sessions Judge has recorded sound reasons for disbelieving PW 3 and PW 4 and the discussion in paragraph 13, 17, 21, 22 and 23 in the judgment and order impugned reveals that a possible view is taken by the learned Sessions Judge.
13. I do not find that there is any compelling reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge while reversing the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate, is a possible view and indeed is the only view which could have been taken in the teeth of the evidence on record. The view taken is certainly not perverse.
The appeal is sans merit and is rejected.
JUDGE Adgokar/Nikhare/Belkhede ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:24 :::