Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Arun Khatal & Ors on 6 May, 2016
Bench: A.I.S. Cheema
cria622.03
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.622 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Mohan Bali Dangat,
Age-35 years, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Sakhewadi,
Tq. & Dist-Osmanabad.
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) Arun Dadarao Khattal,
Age-25 years,
2) Lahu Manohar Shirsat,
Age-32 years,
3) Sahebrao Sadashiv Dalve,
Age-25 years,
4) Bhaurao Sadashiv Dalve,
Age-30 years,
5) Anna Sadashiv Dalve,
Age-35 years,
6) Jivan Bhanudas Khatal,
Age-35 years,
7) Ram Bhanudas Khatal,
Age-40 years,
8) Netaji Durga Ingale,
Age-25 years,
[9) Raosaheb Bhanudas Khatal,
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:12:01 :::
cria622.03
2
Age-42 years,]
(Appeal abated as against
Respondent No.9 as per
Court's order dated 24.02.2010),
10) Vinayak Raosaheb Khatal,
Age-20 years,
11) Anil Gopinath Raibhan,
Age-29 years,
All R/o-Sakhewadi,
Tq. & Dist-Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Accused)
...
Shri S.M. Ganachari, A.P.P. for Appellant.
Shri A.N. Irpatgire Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 11.
Appeal abated as against Respondent No.9 as
per Court's Order dated 24.02.2010.
...
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22ND APRIL,2016.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 6TH MAY, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1. The State has filed this Appeal against
acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 - original
accused Nos.1 to 11. I will refer to them as
accused. Respondent No.9 - original accused No.9 -
cria622.03
Raosaheb Bhanudas Khatal has been reported as dead
during pendency of the Appeal and matter has
abated for him.
2. The accused were tried before IIIrd Joint
J.M.F.C. Osmanabad in R.C.C. No.322 of 2000 for
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324,
323, 504 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ("IPC" in brief). They have been acquitted by
the J.M.F.C. by the Judgment dated 12th June 2003.
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is
as follows:-
A). Complainant Mohan Dangat filed FIR
Exhibit 56 on 29th August 2000 at Police Station
Osmanabad (Rural) and Crime No.89 of 2000 was
registered. The complaint was that on that day at
about 8.00 p.m. the complainant was near Maruti
Temple at Saknewadi, Tq-Osmanabad. He was sitting
in front of his house which is situated there. At
that time, accused Nos.1 to 11 (FIR gives their
cria622.03
names) came there armed with sticks, axe and chain
and started abusing him. Accused No.6 Jivan hit
axe on the head of the complainant. Accused No.1
Arun gave blow by cycle chain which fell on right
hand of the complainant. Accused No.2 Lahu hit
stick on the back of the complainant. The other
accused persons gave fist and kick blows and
blows by sticks to the complainant. At that time
his brother Ankush, Gunwant - son of Ankush, one
Vikas Dangat, Mangal - wife of Ankush, Sunita -
daughter of Ankush, Usha Dangat, Nirmalabai, Jivan
Dangat, Agatrao Mane, Vitthal Salunke, Anil Ankush
Dangat, Gopinath Dangat intervened and even they
were beaten by stick, axe and cycle chain and they
were injured. The FIR then gives names of couple
of persons who saw the quarrel and had intervened
and reached the complainant to his house. Thus,
the complaint.
B). After the offence was registered, P.I.
Pramod Koparde (PW-11) investigated the offence.
The Spot-Panchnama (Exhibit 57) was recorded.
cria622.03
Blood stained clothes of the complainant and
injured Vithal Salunke (PW-4) were seized vide
Panchnama Exhibit 60. The accused came to be
arrested. Medical certificates of the complainant
and the injured (Exhibit 73 to 85) were collected
as they were got medically examined. Statements of
witnesses were recorded. After investigation, the
charge-sheet was filed.
4. Charge came to be framed for offences as
mentioned above. The accused pleaded not guilty.
Their defence is of denial. According to them,
there are two different groups in the village and
because of political rivalry, false case has been
filed.
5. Prosecution brought on record evidence of
twelve witnesses. The trial Court, after
considering the evidence, recorded reasons in its
Judgment and acquitted the accused persons. Thus,
this Appeal.
cria622.03
6. According to the learned A.P.P. for
State, even if the complainant PW-1 Mohan turned
hostile, there was evidence of PW-3 Chandrakant
Mane, who was eye witness. PW-4 Vithal had also
seen the incident and he was also an injured.
There was then evidence as to how PW-5 Ankush, the
brother of the complainant was hit by the accused
persons. When his family members PW-6 to PW-9
intervened, even they were caused hurt. Medical
evidence of injuries of these witnesses was
available but that has been disbelieved. It was
argued that the trial Court wrongly appreciated
the evidence and the accused persons deserve to be
convicted.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
accused referred to the oral evidence of witnesses
to show that there were different versions and
contradictions, and omissions were proved through
the investigating officer. The counsel submitted
that PW-4 Vithal had deposed that accused No.9
Raosaheb gave him axe blow while FIR says that it
cria622.03
was accused No.6 Jivan who had the axe. It was
stated that PW-5 had deposed that accused No.9
Raosaheb rather had a stick. Although PW-7 claimed
that he was injured in the incident, his parents
did not refer to his presence. No weapons of
assault were recovered and although clothes were
seized, they were not sent to C.A. and C.A.
Reports were not obtained. The case is outcome of
political rivalry and the acquittal is rightly
recorded by the trial Court and the Appeal should
be dismissed.
8. I have gone through the evidence which
was brought on record. The complainant PW-1 Mohan
turned hostile and disowned contents of the FIR
Exhibit 56. The evidence of PW-2 Suryakant Chavan
read with the evidence of PW-11 Investigating
Officer Pramod shows that vide Panchnama Exhibit
60 blood stained clothes of the complainant and
injured witness PW-4 Vithal were seized. However,
when these clothes were not sent to C.A., the
evidence is not of much value.
cria622.03
9. PW-3 Chandrakant Mane denied in the
cross-examination the suggestion that he had
reached the spot after the incident was over, but
in his examination-in-chief deposed only to the
effect that accused No.1 gave stick blow to Ankush
(PW-5) and complainant Mohan. The other evidence
brought on record by the prosecution is about
various other persons being assaulted, but PW-3
Chandrakant did not depose about any other thing.
This witness was not named in the F.I.R. where
couple of other names were recorded as persons who
saw the incident.
10. There is evidence of PW-4 Vithal Salunke
claiming that when he was coming towards the spot,
he saw that people had gathered and complainant
Mohan and PW-5 Ankush had been injured. According
to him when he stopped there, accused No.9
Raosaheb gave axe blow to him causing injury to
his left hand small finger and he was injured near
his eye on left side. He does not depose about
cria622.03
any other persons intervening and being beaten by
accused.
11. Then there is evidence of PW-5 Ankush
Dangat, his wife PW-6 Mangal, his son PW-7 Anil,
his other son PW-8 Gunwant and his daughter Sunita
(PW-9). All of them referred to the injuries
caused to PW-5 to PW-9.
12. When I have gone through the evidence of
PW-3 to PW-9 who claimed either to be witnesses or
injured, in nut-shell what these witnesses have
deposed is about their arrival at the spot when
the incident started or some time after it had
started.
(a) As regards the assault on PW-5 Ankush,
there is evidence of PW-3 Chandrakant that accused
No.1 hit PW-5 Ankush by stick. PW-9 Sunita claimed
that accused No.1 Arun hit stick on right elbow of
Ankush. Against this, PW-5 Ankush himself claimed
that he was hit by stick by accused No.9 Raosaheb
cria622.03
and accused No.6 Jivan. PW-8 Gunwant corroborates
PW-5 on this count. However, if evidence of PW-6
Mangal is perused, she claims that accused Nos. 1,
3 to 6 and 9 beat Ankush by stick. PW-7 Anil,
however, claimed that accused No.1, 3, 5, 7 and 9
had beaten PW-5 Ankush.
(b) If evidence of PW-4 Vithal Salunke is
perused, he claimed that he was hit by axe by
accused No.9 Raosaheb and was injured to his
little finger. He also claims to have injuries
near his eye. No other witness deposed regarding
this assault.
(c) With regard to PW-6 Mangal, she claimed
that accused No.1 Arun hit her by stick causing
injury to her right elbow. PW-7 Anil merely
claimed that accused No.1 assaulted his mother.
However, omission was proved regarding such claim
by PW-7.
(d) PW-7 Anil deposed that he was beaten by
cria622.03
accused No.1 on left hand shoulder. There does not
appear to be any corroboration to his version.
(e) Regarding injury to PW-9 Sunita, PW-5
Ankush claimed that accused No.6 Jivan gave stick
blow to Sunita on shoulder. However, that claim of
his is proved to be an omission vis-a-vis police
statement. PW-9 Sunita herself claimed that
accused No.6 Jivan assaulted her on her right
shoulder. However, PW-7 Anil has deposed that
accused No.1 Arun had assaulted his sister. His
claim has been proved to be an omission.
(f) PW-8 Gunwant claimed to have been hit by
accused Nos.5 and 6 by stick on his head near
right eye.
13. I am aware that in an incident of riot
where actions take place in quick succession,
there may be difference in versions. However, oral
evidence of the incident needs to be cross checked
with the medical evidence. The medical evidence
cria622.03
brought on record was of PW-10 Dr. Amol Jain, who
examined the complainant and other injured
persons.
(i) The evidence of Dr. Amol Jain shows that
he had examined PW-8 Gunwant and found one
contusion on his left shoulder and another
contusion on left parital region.
(ii) PW-6 Mangal was examined by doctor and
she had one Contused Lacerated Wound (CLW) on
right wrist and one CLW on right elbow.
(iii) PW-9 Sunita had contusion to her
right shoulder.
(iv) PW-4 Vithal claimed that he sustained
injury due to axe blow to his little finger and
near eye on left side. He was examined by doctor
and doctor found him to be having one CLW on left
ring finger and another CLW near left eye and CLW
on right thumb.
cria622.03
(v) PW-7 Anil was examined and it was found
that he has contusion on left arm.
14. The doctor examined other persons also
but those witnesses were not examined.
15. Keeping above oral and medical evidence
in view, it can be seen that there are
inconsistencies and exaggerations also. It is
material to note that apart from the fact that
C.A. Reports were not obtained, in this matter
although various instruments are said to have been
used, including cutting instrument like axe and
chain, they have not been seized. The evidence of
doctor is that injuries of the witnesses were
possible in scuffle. The evidence of prosecution,
however, is one sided as if only the accused
persons were attacking. The evidence of Panch PW-2
Suryakant shows admission in the cross-examination
that there are two parties in the village. PW-3
Chandrakant who claims to have witnessed the
cria622.03
incident, pleaded ignorance to say that he did not
have knowledge about two parties in the village.
PW-4 Vithal, however, admitted that he belongs to
opposite party of the accused, although he did not
want to accept that there were two political
parties in the village. Thus, clearly the parties
had strained relations and tendency to avoid
uncomfortable facts is seen in evidence.
16. Another important aspect in this matter
is that from the mouth of none of the witnesses,
it has come on record as to what was the cause of
quarrel on the day concerned. Even if there are
different parties, or strained relations were
there, what happened on that particular date to
trigger the incident, has not come on record. In
fact in the cross-examination of PW-7 Anil and PW-
9 Sunita, specific questions were put up but they
deposed that they did not know as to what was the
reason of quarrel. Thus the prosecution witnesses
were not willing to bring on record the actual
reason for trigger of the incident and looking to
cria622.03
the fact of injuries possible during scuffle, the
evidence brought on record starts loosing appeal.
Yet another fact is the admission of PW-5 Ankush
that, at the time of incident, electric supply was
disconnected for five minutes. The other witnesses
either pleaded ignorance regarding electric supply
or denied that electric supply was not there.
There is evidence in the cross-examination of
these witnesses showing that many people had
gathered. However, independent eye witnesses do
not appear to have been examined.
17. The trial Court considered the evidence
and observed that although PW-3 Chandrakant Mane
claimed to be eye witness and FIR gave details of
various persons who witnessed the incident, still
PW-3 Chandrakant was not named as eye witness of
the incident. The trial Court found that the
doctor in medical certificates had failed to
mention identification marks of the patients and
the evidence of doctor shows that the injuries
were possible while working in field. Trial Court
cria622.03
also observed that there is no evidence of use of
cycle chain. The weapons were not produced or
identified and they were not recovered also. Trial
Court kept in view reported Judgments with
reference to cases relating to riots. Referring to
the facts of the present matter, the trial Court
observed that there were two groups and the
accused were from opposite party and PW-5 to PW-9
were closely related to each other and PW-3
Chandrakant had not been referred in the FIR and
PW-4 Vithal had not referred regarding the assault
on other witnesses. Considering these aspects and
the contradictions and omissions proved, the trial
Court was not convinced with the evidence and
acquitted the accused persons.
18. I have also gone through the evidence and
for reasons discussed, find that the conclusions
ultimately drawn by the trial Court to acquit the
accused finding the evidence as not appealing, is
possible view. There is no reason to interfere in
this Judgment of acquittal. There is no substance
cria622.03
in the Appeal.
19. The Appeal is rejected. Bail bonds of
accused are cancelled.
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.]
asb/MAY16
