Rajkumar S/O Murlidhar Shende vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its P.S.O., P.S. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5515 Bom

                     Judgment

                                                                                    appa492.10 and revn151.12

                                                                 1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                            CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.492 OF 2010
                                              AND
                           CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2012




                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.492 OF 2010

                     The State of Maharashtra,
                     Through Police Station Officer,
                     Police Station, Armori District
                     Gadchiroli.                                                          ..... Applicant.

                                                        ::   VERSUS   ::

                     1. Arvind Sukhindar Lakade,
                     Aged about 40 years,
                     R/o Rangi, District Gadchiroli.

                     2. Prakash Pundlik Rohankar,
                     Aged about 42 years,
                     R/o Belaji, District Gadchiroli.

                     3. Manohar Devrao Ramteke,
                     Aged about 42 years,
                     R/o Rangi, District Gadchiroli.
  As per Court's 
  order 20.6.17 
  appeal abated 
as against R.No.4.   4. Nishant Jagannath Nandeshwar


                                                                                                           .....2/-



                       ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017                                ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:13:31 :::
 Judgment

                                                         appa492.10 and revn151.12

                                        2

Aged about 38 years,
R/o Armori, District Gadchiroli.

5. Tukadu Kashinath Bambode,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o Rangi, District Gadchiroli.

6. Shubhankar Ganuji Morande,
Aged about 37 years,
R/o Rangi, District Gadchiroli.

7. Waman Rushiji Shende,
Aged about     years,
R/o Thanegaon.                                             ..... Non-applicants. 

================================================================
           Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the appellant/State.
           Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Counsel for non-applicant Nos.1 to 7.
================================================================




CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2012

Mr. Rajkumar s/o Murlidhar Shende,
Age about 48 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Churmura, Tahsil Armori,
District Gadchiroli.                                      ..... Applicant.

                                 ::   VERSUS   ::

1. State of Maharashtra,


                                                                              .....3/-



  ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017                          ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:13:31 :::
 Judgment

                                         appa492.10 and revn151.12

                                3

Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Churmura,
Tahsil - Armori, District Gadchiroli.

2. Arvind Sukhindar Lakade,
Aged about 47 years.

3. Tukaram Maroti Katlami,
Aged about 29 years.

4. Vijay Narayan Undirwade,
Aged about 49 years.

5. Ashok Shriram Meshram,
Aged about 49 years.

6. Satyawan Yograj Kamble,
Aged about 46 years.

7. Jagdish Ganpat Pathar,
Aged about 52 years.

8. Rastrapal Sukhdeo Meshram,
Aged about 53 years.

9. Ramesh Maroti Gadekar,
Aged about 43 years.

10. Prakash Pundlik Rohankar,
Aged about 49 years.

11. Manohar Deorao Ramteke,

                                                              .....4/-



 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017           ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:13:31 :::
                       Judgment

                                                           appa492.10 and revn151.12

                                                      4

                      Aged about 49 years.
   As per Court's 
   order 20.6.17 
  revision abated     12. Nishant Jagannath Nandeshwar,
as against R.No.12.
                      Aged about 45 years.

                      13. Lukesh Shrihari Ukey,
                      Aged about 29 years.

                      14. Deepak Chokhoba Mankar,
                      Aged about 42 years.

                      15. Narendra Ramji Meshram,
                      Aged about 42 years.

                      16. Haridas Devaji Khodve,
                      Aged about 45 years.

                      17. Shivaji Sakharam Dhiware,
                      Aged about 44 years.

                      18. Khushalchand Kisan Ramteke,
                      Aged about 57 years.

                      19. Ramdas Kawdu Kumbhare,
                      Aged about 60 years.

                      20. Devanand Murlidhar Badwaik,
                      Aged about 46 years.

                      21. Ravindra Nilkanth Karade,
                      Aged about 47 years.


                                                                                .....5/-



                       ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017       ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:13:31 :::
 Judgment

                                            appa492.10 and revn151.12

                                5

22. Shrikrushna Watuji Thaware,
Aged about 50 years.

23. Sukhdeo Narayan Khobragade,
Aged about 49 years.

24. Premdas Ishwar Gabhane,
Aged about 43 years.

25. Lukeshwar Khemaji Gonnade,
Aged about 46 years.

26. Tukadu Kashinath Bambode,
Aged about 60 years.

27. Shubhankar Ganuji Morande,
Aged about 44 years.

28. Shamlal Bajirao Pada,
Aged about 29 years.

29. Waman Rushiji Shende,
Aged about     years.

30. Mandabai Kashiram Bhoyar,
Aged about       years.

Respondent No.2, 8 , 11, 17, 20, 21, 26, 27 are
R/o Rangi,
Respondent No.3, R/o Nimgaon,
Respondent No.4, R/o Vihirgaon,
Respondent No.5, 12, 18, 22, 30 are R/o Armori,

                                                                 .....6/-



 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:13:31 :::
 Judgment

                                                           appa492.10 and revn151.12

                                          6

Respondent No.6 is R/o Bhivkhadaki,
Respondent No.7, 9, 14, 15, 19, 23, 29 are R/o
Thanegaon,
Respondent No.10 is R/o Belaji,
Respondent No.13 is R/o Mohani,
Respondent No.16 is R/o Injewari,
Respondent No.24, 25, are R/o Bazar Toli
Respondent No.28 is R/o Mohali, District -
Gadchiroli.                                                 ..... Non-applicants.

================================================================
           Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Counsel for the applicant/complainant.
           Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Counsel for non-applicant Nos.2 to 30.
           Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for non-applicant No.1/State.
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE    : AUGUST 3, 2017.

COMMON JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this common judgment, these two cases are

decided since both arise out of judgment and order of

acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge at Gadchiroli

dated 7.4.2010 in Sessions Case No.59 of 2003 acquitting the

.....7/-

Judgment

appa492.10 and revn151.12

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,

435, 395, 324, 427, 504, 294, and 506 read with Section 149 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Criminal Application No.492 of 2010 is filed by the

State, by that leave is sought from this Court to file an appeal

against acquittal.

Whereas Criminal Revision No.151 of 2012 is filed

by the original complainant challenging the acquittal of non-

applicants.

3. Complainant Rajkumar Murlidhar Shende was

Secretary of the Society and Headmaster of "Licit High

School, Rangi." A High School at Thanegaon is run by the said

Society. Rajkumar Shende is Secretary of the Gram Vikas

Shikshan Sanstha at Churmura. There were serious disputes

amongst the Secretary and the President of the said Sanstha.

.....8/-

Judgment

appa492.10 and revn151.12

Various litigations were filed and ultimately learned Joint

Charity Commissioner was required to intervene and the

complainant, who was Secretary, was placed under

suspension from the post of the Secretary of the institution.

Various complaints were also filed with the Education

Department. The nature of the complaints were of

misappropriation of funds and acquisition of disproportionate

of assets by the complainant. Due to that, the Education

Department withdrew administrative and financial powers

conferred on complainant Rajkumar Shende. He was also

prosecuted for committing an offence under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring disproportionate assets

worth Rs.35.00 lacs. Likewise, there were complaints from

students for non-receipts of scholarship amounts. Therefore,

they made enquiries with the complainant and, thereafter,

dispute started.

.....9/-

Judgment

appa492.10 and revn151.12

4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid, as per the

prosecution case, on 24.12.2002 the complainant when was

present in his house at 4:00 p.m., students from "Licit High

School and Junior College" and teachers came to the

complainant and started demanding scholarship amounts.

The complainant tried to pacify them that the amounts are in

bank and, therefore, unless the said are withdrawn, it cannot

be disbursed. He also asked 4 students to accompany him to

the bank. Pursuant thereto, 4 students and the complainant

went to Armori Cooperative Bank where Manager of the bank

was contacted. However, the Manager of the Bank apprised

all of them that as per the legal advice, he cannot make the

payments to the complainant and the amounts can be

disbursed to Incharge headmaster. Because of that, the

complainant as well as 4 students returned to Thanegaon.

There other students as well as employees encircled the car.

.....10/-

Judgment

appa492.10 and revn151.12

Then accused No.1 Arvind Lakade, who is teacher, instigated

others and students to assault and manhandle the

complainant. Because of that, all accused burnt Maruti Alto

Car as well as other 4 wheelers. They also assaulted the

complainant. Shirt of the complainant was also torn. One of

accused Amrut Meshram snatched a mobile as well as a bag,

which was in the hands of the complainant containing

Rs.41,500/-. On such allegations, a crime bearing No.98 of 2002

was registered.

5. During the course of the Trial, as many as 8

witnesses were examined.

6. Learned Judge of the Court below, after

appreciating the evidences, found that the prosecution has

failed to prove its case against the non-applicants.

7. With the assistance of learned counsel Shri M.P.

.....11/-

Judgment

appa492.10 and revn151.12

Khajanchi for the complainant in criminal revision

application and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

R.S. Nayak for the State, I have gone through the impugned

judgment and order.

8. By now, the law is well settled that merely because

other view is possible, the Appellate Court shall not substitute

its view in place of verdict of acquittal given by the Trial

Court unless it is shown that available evidence is not

considered by the Court below or evaluation of available

evidence is perverse one.

9. Both learned counsel Shri M.P. Khajanchi and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri R.S. Nayak fairly

state that the judgment of the Court below could not be

assailed on the said ground.

10. In my view, since the evaluation of the prosecution

.....12/-

Judgment

appa492.10 and revn151.12

case, at the hands of the Court below, was proper, I see no

reason to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal.

Hence, leave to file an appeal is refused to the State and the

criminal revision application filed by the complainant stands

rejected. Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-