Balwant Dattu Patil vs State Of Maharashtra, Shri ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 724 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. Shri Sadavarte Vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge as well as the appellate Judge as well as the appellate Judge committed the error of appreciating the evidence and recording a finding that the appellant caused voluntary hurt to PW Hausabai. He pointed out that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is so weak that by no stretch of imagination it could have been said that the petitioner was responsible for the injuries sustained by PW Hausabai. Shri Saste submitted that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the appellate Judge is correct, proper and legal. He pointed out that it has been stated by number of witnesses that the petitioner was the person who assaulted PW Hausabai. He submitted that this revision application be dismissed.

2. If the judgment passed by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the appellate court is seen, it is evident that the learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution at length. The conclusions drawn by him are borne out by the evidence on record. When the appeal was preferred by the present appellant, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur has also discussed the evidence in detail. In paragraph Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 he has discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution at length. In paragraph No. 25, he pointed out that the witness Housabai Khadre at Exhibit 38 stated that when she heard the noise from the office of the grampanchayat and went there, she saw that there was bleeding injuries to the prosecution witnesses who were injured and when she advised the persons engaged in quarrel, the present petitioner gave a stick blow on her head and she sustained a bleeding injury on account of that blow. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has pointed out in his judgment that the evidence of the complainant has been corroborated by Rangarao Ulape, Deu Savarde and Dattatraya. According to the evidence of all these witnesses, the revision petitioner was also a person assaulting the complainant. The learned Appellate Judge has also pointed out in his judgment that the evidence of the complainant has been corroborated by his first information report.

3. When both the Courts below have discussed the evidence at length and the conclusions drawn by them cannot be doubted as void of evidence or void of reliability, the challenge put to their conclusions will have to be dismissed. Thus, the criminal revision application stands dismissed as it is substanceless.