State Of Maharashtra vs Deepak Tukaram Madhavi & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 743 Bom

                                                                      (902) Apeal 596-00

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    Amk




                                                                                         
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2000

          The State of Maharashtra                                     ...Appellant




                                                                 
          Through Bhiwandi City Police Station

                                  Versus




                                                                
          1.  Deepak Tukaram Madhavi                    ...Respondents
          2.  Vinayak Narayan Patil
          3.  Prashant Narayan Kedar




                                                    
          All residing at Kaneri, Tal.- Bhiwandi,
          Dist.- Thane.
                                         ig  .....
          Mr. Deepak Thakare, APP for the Appellant-State.
          None for the Respondent.
                                       
                                                      CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J. 
                                                                    th
                                                      DATE     : 18
                                                                       MARCH, 2016.
                                                                                   
            


          JUDGMENT 

1. This is an Appeal preferred against the judgment and

order dated 24.04.2000 passed in R.C.C. No. 820 of 1996 by the Joint

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwandi thereby acquitting the

respondents of the offences punishable under sections 325, 427 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated, the facts are

as under:

2. The respondents were prosecuted for the offences

punishable under Sections 325, 427 read with Section 34 of the

(902) Apeal 596-00

Indian Penal Code on the allegations that at about 2.00 p.m. on

01.12.1996, the respondents subjected the complainant, Giridhar

Shravan Ohalkar to severe beating by means of fist and kick blows

and there by injured him grievously and also vandalized the jeep on

which the complainant was working as driver. The complainant

alleged that such assault on him and damage caused to the jeep was

all on account of a political rivalry between his Master, Siddheshwar

Kammurti and one Harishchandra Patil, a political leader belonging

to the rival party. In this assault, the complainant alleged, one tooth

of the complainant was lost. The damage caused to the jeep was in

the nature of breaking of window pane. On the report made by the

complainant, offences punishable under Sections 325 & 427 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the

respondents and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

filed against them. They were tried on merits of the case and the

learned Magistrate found that the prosecution evidence did not

inspire any confidence and, therefore, acquitted the respondents of

the said offences by his judgment and order delivered on 24.04.2000.

Not being satisfied with the same, the State has preferred the present

appeal.

(902) Apeal 596-00

3. I have heard the learned APP for the State. None appears

for the respondents. I have gone through the records of the case

including the impugned judgment and order.

4. Upon going through the prosecution evidence available on

record, I find that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is

plausible and cannot be said to be arising out of perverse or arbitrary

appreciation of evidence available on record.

5.

There are major contradictions in the important evidence

of the prosecution witnesses and that no independent witnesses

appear to have been examined to corroborate the evidence of the

complainant, PW 1 Giridhar. It is an admitted fact that the

complainant, Giridhar was assaulted by some persons out of political

rivalry between the Master of Giridhar and one Harishchandra Patil.

According to Giridhar, the respondents were the persons who had

assaulted him and also caused damage to the jeep, the defence

contended that they were not at all involved in the incident and the

allegations were made against them only because of the political

rivalry between the Master of the complainant and one

Harishchandra Patil. In such circumstances, it was necessary that the

evidence of the complainant was duly corroborated. Then, according

(902) Apeal 596-00

to the complainant, the entire incident took place at 2.00 p.m. on

01.12.1996 but, according to PW 2 the incident took place some time

before 1.30 p.m. as the complainant had approached him at 1.30 p.m.

and told him about his being beaten by the respondents. This is a

material contradiction in respect of which no explanation whatsoever

has been given by the prosecution. Although, the clothes of the

complainant were stained with blood, as per the version of the

complainant, no blood stained clothes were produced before the

Court. According to complainant, there was no exchange of words

between himself and attackers before he was assaulted but, PW 3, the

so called eye witness, had stated that there was some heated

exchange of words between the complainant and the assailants. Such

evidence, as stated earlier, required corroboration in order to inspire

the confidence of the Court. But, there is no such corroboration

provided by the prosecution evidence and as such I do not find that

there is any scope for making any interference in the impugned

judgment and order.

6. The Appeal stands dismissed.

(S. B. SHUKRE, J.)