The State Of Maharashtra vs Girdhari Prasad Gupta And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 6274 Bom

                                                                      24_als_48_2017.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.48 OF 2017

The State of Maharashtra                                    ...Applicant
                       Versus 
Girdhari Prasad Gupta and Ors.                            ...Respondents
                                 .....
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Applicant-State.
None for the Respondents.


                                    CORAM :   SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. 

DATED : 16th AUGUST, 2017.

P.C.:-

Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. Perused the

records. The Respondents herein, who are the accused in Criminal

Case No.27 of 2002 have been acquitted by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, 1st Court, Kalyan by judgment dated 24 th

November, 2016. Aggrieved by the said order the State has filed this

application for leave to challenge the said judgment of acquittal.

2. The records reveal that the Respondents-accused were

charged for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 and

Megha 1/3

24_als_48_2017.doc

506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution had examined PW1-

Pappu-First Informant and PW2-Devendra as the injured witnesses and

PW-4-Baburao and PW-6-Santosh as two other independent witnesses.

3. The evidence on record reveals that there is a civil dispute

between the accused and PW1 and PW2. The testimony of PW1

indicates that alleged incident had occurred on 10.12.2001 while he

was repairing the house. He claims that accused had gathered at the

spot of the incident and told them that they would not allow them to

carry out the repairs unless civil suit is withdrawn. PW1 claims that

the Respondent- Lalasahab had pelted a stone at him, but he had

moved aside and avoided being hit by the stone. He states that the

accused Shantidevi pulled his hair and assaulted him on his back while

Manoj assaulted him by bamboo on his head.

4. PW2 has not supported the version of PW1 as testimony of

PW2 reveals that Pappu (PW1) had a fall and sustained bleeding head

injury. The evidence of these witnesses does not indicate that

Respondents had assaulted PW1 on his back. PW4 has not supported

the case of the prosecution while PW6 has not given the details of the

incident. He has merely stated that he had only seen the accused, PW1

Megha 2/3

24_als_48_2017.doc

and PW2 quarreling with each other. The learned Judge was therefore,

perfectly justified in recording that the evidence is totally inconsistent.

5. The medical evidence reveals that the injury sustained by

PW1 was simple in nature. The investigation also indicates that

accused had also sustained injuries and that they too had visited the

police station and were referred for medical examination. The

prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused.

This fact indicates that the prosecution witnesses have not disclosed

the true story and makes their version doubtful.

6. The order of acquittal is neither illegal nor perverse.

Hence, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                                             (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)




Megha                                                                                         3/3