State Of Maha vs Bhagwan Sukhdeo Sonwane & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 483 Bom

                                                                           473.03crpl
                                            -1-




                                                                          
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.473 OF 2003

     The State of Maharashtra                      ...Appellant

              versus




                                                 
     1.       Bhagwan Sukhadeo Sonawane,
              Age: 36 years, Occ: Agri.,

     2.       Babasaheb Paraji Kale,




                                          
              Age: 44 years, Occ: Agri.,

     3.
                             
              Manjabapu Tukaram Kale,
              Age: 34 years, Occ: Agri.,

     4.       Sanjay Tukaram Kale,
                            
              Age: 30 years, Occ: Agri.,

     5.       Laxman Kisan Chavhan,
              Age: 44 years, Occ: Agri.,
      


     6.       Nandkumar Kisan Chavhan,
              Age: 34 years, Occ: Agri.,
   



     7.       Karbhari Kisan Chavhan,
              Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri.,
              (Abated as per order





              dtd. 29.08.09).

              All R/o. Khokar, Tal. Shrirampur,
              District Ahmednagar.                         ...Respondents

                                           WITH





              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2003


     Dnyandeo s/o Namdeo Pawar,
     Age: 54 years, Occ: Agri.,
     R/o. Khokar, Tq. Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmedangar.                                     ...Applicant

              versus

     1.       The State of Maharashtra



    ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:21:04 :::
                                                                                 473.03crpl
                                              -2-




                                                                               
     2.       Bhagwan Sukhdeo Sonwane,
              Age: 36 years, Occ: Agri.,




                                                       
     3.       Babasaheb Paraji Kale,
              Age: 44 years, Occ: Agri.,

     4.       Manjabapu Tukaram Kale,
              Age: 34 years, Occ: Agri.,




                                                      
     5.       Sanjay Tukaram Kale,
              Age: 30 years, Occ: Agri.,

     6.       Laxman Kisan Chavhan,




                                             
              Age: 44 years, Occ: Agri.,

     7.
                             
              Nandkumar Kisan Sonwane,
              Age: 34 years, Occ: Agri.,

     8.       Karbhari Kisan Chavhan,
                            
              Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri.,
              (Abated as per order
              dtd. 29.08.09).
      

              All respondent Nos. 2 to 8
              R/o. Khokar, Tal. Shrirampur,
              District Ahmednagar.                              ...Respondents
   



                                             .....
              Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of
              2003 and for respondent No. 1 Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 127 of 2003





              Mr. T.M. Tandale, Advocate h/f Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for
              respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2003 and
              for respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in Cri. Revn. Appln . No. 127/2003
              Mr. Sandesh Hange, Advocate h/f Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate
              for applicant in Criminal Revision Appln. No. 127 of 2003





                                          .....


                                                CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 9th MARCH, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Present Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision

Application are preferred against the verdict of acquittal of

473.03crpl

respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147,

148, 149, 326, 324, 323 of Indian Penal Code read with Section

37(1)(3) of Bombay Police Act.

2. The facts, as are necessary, for deciding the present

appeal and revision, are as under :-

Complainant Dnyandeo Namdeo Pawar vide complaint

Exhibit-58 dated 05/01/2001 claimed that out of political rivalry, the

respondents herein have assaulted him and his companions by

causing serious injuries resulting into crime in question.

3. Uttam Rajaram Shelke, PW-10 who was examined at

Exhibit-74, received the said complaint after registration by Head

Constable Bhite. Complainant Dnyandeo was hospitalized on the

same day and the said complaint has resulted into registration of

Crime No. 01/2001. After the investigation is set in motion, he has

drawn spot panchnama and recovered three sticks and two metal

rods from the accused Manjabapu. He then recorded statement of

complainant on 15/01/2001, wherein three more accused were

added in addition to earlier accused vide supplementary statement

Exhibit-75. He then investigated the matter and charge sheeted the

accused persons.

473.03crpl

4. So as to bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined

PW-1 Ramesh Kisan Thorat at Exhibit-42, PW-2 Munna Mehboob

Sayyad at Exhibit-44, panch witness on the spot panchnbama, PW-3

Devidas Salalkar, eye witness at Exhibit-46, PW-4 Karbhari Baban

Badakh, panch witness on weapon seizure panchanama at

Exhibit-48, PW-5 Bhausaheb Eknath Wagh, panch witness on

weapon seizure panchnama at Exhibit-49, PW-6 Dnyandeo Namdeo

Pawar, complainant at Exhibit-57, PW-7 Dr. Anil Mahadeo Shinde at

Exhibit-64, PW-8 Dr. Sumeet Agrawal at Exhibit-69, PW-9

Dr. Ravindra Bhausaheb Jagdhane at Exhibit-71 and PW-10 Uttam

Rajaram Shelke at Exhibit-74, the Investigating Officer.

5. The complaint is at Exhibit-58, supplementary statement

of the complainant is at Exhibit-75, spot panchnama at Exhibit-45,

seizure panchnama at Exhibit-49, medical certificate of injured

complainant Dnyandeo, who was examined by three different

Medical Officers are at Exhibits-65, 70 and 72, the statements of

accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure at Exhibits-77 to 83.

6. Upon appreciation of the evidence of above referred

witnesses, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence,

473.03crpl

with which they are charged, on 24/03/2003. As such, Criminal

Appeal No. 473 of 2003 is filed by the State and Revision No. 127 of

2003 is filed by complainant Dnyandeo Namdeo Pawar against

acquittal of the accused persons.

7. While trying to make out a case for reversing the

acquittal and ordering conviction, learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel

for the complainant would urge that learned Magistrate has ignored

the evidence of eye witness and complainant. He would then submit

that the injury certificates at Exhibits-65, 70 and 72 and panchnama

of seizure of weapon from accused Manjabapu at Exhibit-49 depicts

prima facie involvement of the respondents in the crime in question.

He would then submit that the medical evidence coupled with the

statement of eye witness speak of strong prima facie case of

conviction of the respondents and as such, the Court below has

committed an error, which calls for indulgence in revisional

jurisdiction.

8. The sum and substance of the submission of learned

A.P.P. and learned Counsel for the complainant is that there is strong

case for conviction of the respondents and this Court should

reassess the entire evidence.

473.03crpl

9. Learned Counsel for the respondents-accused would

submit that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt based on

the evidence, which has prompted learned the Court below to accord

acquittal of the respondents. According to him, there is no substance

in appeal and revision, as such, prayed for rejection of the same.

10. With the assistance of learned A.P.P., and respective

Counsel, I have scanned the record of the learned Court below

including that of evidence recorded.

11. It is required to be noted that the charge came to be

framed at Exhibit-28 against the accused persons. Thereafter, the

evidence of eye witnesses are recorded. PW-1 Ramesh Kisan

Thorat, the eye witness, though narrated about the alleged incident,

however, upon scrutiny of his cross examination, it could be easily

noted that there was political enmity in between the group of the

complainant and that of accused persons. In his cross examination,

he has brought on record that accused Babasaheb is Director of the

Ashok Co-operative sugar factory and accused Laxman is Sarpanch

of the village Khokar. The other accused are the relatives of each

other and accused Nandkumar and Laxmikant are brothers. He then

admits that there are two groups, which are identified by one Murkute

group and another by Sasane group. According to him, Dnyandeo,

473.03crpl

complainant belongs to Murkute group, whereas the accused

persons belong to Sasane group. He then narrates that accused

Manjabapu gave blow of iron rod below right knee on front side of the

leg to the said witness.

12. It is required to be noted that Dnyandeo, complainant

claimed that he became unconscious because of beating, however,

the said fact is conspicuously absent in the complaint.

13. It is further required to be noted that vide Exhibit-49, it is

claimed that weapons, which are used in the commission of crime,

were seized from accused Manjabapu, however, it is required to be

noted that panch witnesses to the seizure memo have turned hostile.

14. Apart from above, the alleged claim that seizure

panchnama Exhibit-48 could be termed to be proved by the evidence

of Investigation Officer is concerned, if the evidence of Kashinath and

Bhausaheb Wagh, panch witnesses to the seizure panchnama is

evaluated, in my opinion, there is no other corroboration to accept

the said submission that seizure panchnama was proved. It is further

required to be noted that the said witnesses have turned hostile. The

complainant then claims that he has suffered fracture injuries on

ulnar staypaid and right femoral candyle over tibia and fibula.

473.03crpl

Dr. Jagdhane, Medical Officer, who was examined to prove grievous

hurt has stated that X-ray films were handed over to the complainant,

however X-ray films are not produced on record to prove the injuries.

Even if medical certificate at Exhibit-70 is considered, still it is

required to be noted that the complainant has tried to improve his

story of alleged assault, as is apparent from his testimony.

15. Learned Magistrate, having regard to the nature of

evidence, as is brought on record, has inferred that the prosecution

has failed to bring on record the sufficient evidence, so as to have

verdict of guilt against the accused persons. In my opinion, the

evidence, as is brought on record, is not sufficient to held guilty the

accused-respondents for the crime, which with they were charged.

As such, present appeal and revision, both sans merit and are

accordingly dismissed.

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]

Tupe/09.03.16