The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Nagbhid vs Sarvdamman @ Manohar Bagmare
2016 Latest Caselaw 1849 Bom

                                            1                                         apeal744.03




                                                                                     
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      




                                                             
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                            
     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.744 OF 2003



     The State of Maharashtra, 




                                               
     through the P.S.O., Police Station,
     Nagbhid.                                                         ....       APPELLANT
                             
                         VERSUS
                            
     Sarvdaman alias Manohar Bagmare,
     Aged about 43 years, 
     Occupation - Cultivation, 
      


     R/o Bhikeshwar, Tahsil - Nagbhid, 
     District - Chandrapur.                                           ....       RESPONDENT
   



     ______________________________________________________________
         Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant,





                Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent.
      ______________________________________________________________

                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 26 APRIL, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for

the appellant and Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent.

2 apeal744.03

2. State of Maharashtra has filed the appeal challenging the

judgment passed by the learned Special Judge acquitting the accused

of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 163 and 164 of the Bombay Village

Panchayats Act, 1958 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The case of the prosecution is :

On 14-12-1999 at about 4-00 p.m., the accused obstructed the

complainant - Aawadtabai Sahadeo Shamkule when she was taking

she-buffaloes to cattle pond and the accused intentionally insulted her

by abusing her on her caste. According to the complainant, the

accused was knowing that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste

and to humiliate her the accused had abused the complainant at a

public place in public view. The accused had assaulted the

complainant by fist and blows after felling her down by holding her

hair. The incident was witnessed by some villagers.

The complainant lodged report with the police station, the crime

was registered, the investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was

filed before the learned Magistrate. As the offence is triable by the

Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions.

3 apeal744.03

The charges were framed, read over and explained in vernacular to the

accused. The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried.

The learned Special Judge conducted the trial and by the impugned

judgment concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the

accused had abused the complainant on her caste with intention to

humiliate her, in public view at a public place. The learned Special

Judge concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused

had assaulted the complainant and had hurt her. The learned Special

Judge acquitted the accused.

4. With the assistance of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned Advocate for the

respondent, I have examined the record.

5. The report (Exhibit No.15) lodged by the complainant on

14-12-1999 shows that the complainant had complained that the

accused obstructed her and insulted by giving abuses and assaulted

her. The report does not contain any averment which can constitute

an abuse relating to the caste of the complainant. The averments

regarding abuses on the caste of the complainant are found in the

second report dated 19-12-1999. The prosecution has not explained

4 apeal744.03

the necessity of recording the second report. The statements of the

witnesses were recorded after receipt of the report dated 14-12-1999

and after receipt of the report dated 19-12-1999 again the statements

of the witnesses were recorded. The medical examination report of the

complainant is not on record. The learned Special Judge has doubted

the claim of the complainant that the accused continued the assault for

about fifteen minutes, observing that if the assault had continued for

fifteen minutes in the presence of villagers as alleged, someone might

have intervened.

6. The learned Special Judge has scrutinized the evidence

and other material on record properly and has recorded that the

prosecution has failed to establish, beyond doubt that the accused is

guilty of commission of offence for which he was charged. The

conclusions of the learned Special Judge are based on proper

appreciation of the evidence and other material on the record and it

cannot be said that there is any error or perversity in the conclusions of

the learned Special Judge.

5 apeal744.03

I see no reason to interfere with the judgment. The appeal

is dismissed.

JUDGE

pma