Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Rangnath Baliram Pawar on 25 July, 2016
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
apeal38.02 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38 OF 2002.
APPELLANT: The State of Maharashtra,
through Complainant Narayan Ramkrishna
Deshmukh, aged about 32 years, R/o
Buldana.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT: Rangnath s/o Baliram Pawar,
aged about 30 years, R/o Vaijinath
Nagar, Buldana, P.S.Buldana,Distt.
Buldana.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Smt.Geeta R.Tiwari, Addl. Public prosecutor for the appellant.
Mr.Rajenderpalsingh Renu Adv. h/f Shri R.L.Khapre, Advocate for
the respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE: 25th JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Buldana, dated 9th of November, 2001, in Regular Criminal Case
No.42 of 2001, by which the learned Court below acquitted the
respondent of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard Smt.Geeta Tiwari, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Shri
Rajenderpalsingh Renu Advocate h/f Shri R.L.Khapre Advocate for
the appellant, in extenso.
3. An oral report was lodged by Narayan Ramkrishna
Deshmukh (PW 2) with Police Station Buldana. The said report is
at Exh.24. By the same, it was reported that on the day of the
incident i.e. on 8th of March, 2000, in the morning, when the first
informant was washing his face, the respondent/accused laughed
at him and therefore, when first informant went near to him and
asked as to why he was laughing, that time, respondent gave a fist
blow due to which he suffered injuries on his nose.
The oral report was registered as Crime No.31 of 2000.
The Investigating Officer Kashinath Yashwant Aapar (PW 5),
P.S.I., registered the offence after the receipt of the Medical
Certificate from doctor on 10th of March, 2000. The printed FIR is
at Exh.35.
4. After perusal of the prosecution case and its evidence
brought on record, it is clear that the house of the respondent is
situated about 200 ft. from the house of the first informant, as it
could be seen through the cross-examination of the Investigating
Officer.
5. According to the First Information Report and the
evidence of the first informant, the first informant PW 2 Narayan
went near the respondent, who was standing infront of his house.
According to the FIR and the claim of the injured, the incident has
occurred there, whereas PW 3 Sau.Jijabai Deshmukh, the mother
of the injured, states that the incident has occurred in the
courtyard of the first informant. The spot panchanama (Exh.18)
also shows that the incident has not occurred in the courtyard of
the first informant.
6. Dr.Pradeep Kadam (PW 4) who found fracture on the
nasal bone of the complainant has stated in his evidence that the
injury mentioned in the injury Certificate (Exh.31) can be caused
if a man fell from running cycle. In that view of the matter,
looking to the vital discrepancy in respect of the spot of
occurrence, the view taken by the learned Judge of the Court
below is not perverse and warrants no interference from this
Court. Hence, I pass the following order.
-ORDER-
The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE
chute
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this order/judgment
uploaded is true and correct copy of original signed
order/judgment.
Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute.
Uploaded on: 26/7/2016.
