Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Narsing Vitthal Jadhav on 21 July, 2017
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1485 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra. ] ... Appellant
Versus
Narsingh Vitthal Jadhav. ]
Age - 47 years, Occu. - Agriculture, ]
R/o Jadhavwadi, Tal. Satara, District - Satara. ] ... Respondent
Mr. S. R. Shinde, APP for State - Appellant.
None for Respondent.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :- 21 JULY, 2017
JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard Mr. S. R. Shinde, learned APP for State. None
present for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against
the judgment and order dated 08/09/2003 passed by the learned 5 th
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satara, whereby the learned Judge has
acquitted the respondent from the charges framed under Sections 325,
504 and 506 of the IPC. With the help of the learned APP, I have
gone through the entire evidence as well as the judgment passed by
the trial Court.
URS 1 of 8
2 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
3. According to the prosecution case, the incident in question
had occurred at about 8.30 a.m. on 14/08/2001 in front of
'Bhairavnath Mandir', Jadhavwadi, District - Satara. As per the
prosecution case, the first informant Vishwas Jadhav had questioned
the respondent no.1 in the Annual General Meeting of 'Bhairavnath
Pani Puravtha Sanstha, Village - Jadhavwadi', held on 03/08/2001.
According to the first informant Vishwas Jadhav, the respondent -
accused had taken exception to such questioning and was angry with
him since then. On 14/08/2001 at about 8.30 a.m. when the first
informant Vishwas Jadhav had gone to the 'Bhairavnath Mandir', the
respondent - accused came there. When the first informant came out
of the Mandir, the respondent - the accused asked him as to why he
raised the question about expenditure in the annual meeting on
03/08/2001. Thereafter, the respondent - accused abused the first
informant and gave fist and kick blows. According to the prosecution,
the accused gave a dash to the first informant and pushed him on the
floor because of which the first informant suffered an injury to his
wrist. Accordingly, the first informant approached the Satara Taluka
Police Station. Initially, a non-cognizable case was registered on
14/08/2001 on the allegation of commission of offences punishable
under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The first informant went
to the Civil Hospital and took treatment and it was found that he had
suffered fracture to the wrist of his right hand. After receipt of such
medical report, on 17/09/2001, the offence was registered vide
C.R.No.148 of 2001 at Satara Taluka Police Station under Sections
325, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The investigation was carried out by PW
URS 2 of 8
3 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
4 Head Constable Balasaheb Sarade. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Satara.
4. On 16/08/2002, the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Satara, framed charges against the accused under Sections 325,
504 and 506 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said
charges.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 5
witnesses. PW 1 Vishwas Jadhav is the first informant who had
suffered injuries. PW 2 Sarjerao Jadhav is PW 1 Vishwas Jadhav's
brother and claimed to be an eye witness. PW 3 Tukaram Jadhav also
claimed to be an eye witness to the incident. PW 4 Police Head
Constable Balasaheb Sarade is the Investigating Officer and PW 5 Dr.
Rajesh Shinde is the Medical Officer who had examined PW 1 and had
issued medical certificate. During recording of the evidence,
suggestions were given to the witnesses that it was the PW 1 who had
pelted stones at the accused and in the process, the PW 1 himself fell
down on the ground and suffered the injuries to his hand and the
accused was not responsible for the same. It was also suggested that
the PW 1 himself was a defaulter of the 'Sanstha' and an amount of
about Rs.26,000/- was due to be recovered from him and since the
accused was insisting on such payment, the PW 1 held grudge against
the accused and therefore had implicated him in this false case.
URS 3 of 8
4 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
6. The learned trial Judge recorded the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused denied
the prosecution case. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial
Judge recorded his findings in the judgment and order dated
08/09/2003 and was pleased to acquit the accused from all the
charges.
7. With the assistance of the learned APP, I have gone
through the entire evidence as well as the judgment of the learned
trial Judge and I find that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is
a possible view and does not call for any interference.
8. The main witness for the prosecution is obviously PW 1
Vishwas Jadhav who has suffered injuries. The said witness has
deposed that there was a meeting on 03/08/2001 where there was
exchange of words between the accused and himself in respect of the
conduct of the affairs of the 'Sanstha'. According to him, therefore,
the accused was holding grudge against him. However, his deposition
also reveals that there was some outstanding amount due and payable
by him which the 'Sanstha' was intending to recover. Thus,
admittedly, there was an enmity on both sides and therefore, the
evidence of PW 1 Vishwas Jadhav has to be scrutinized carefully from
that angle. As far as the main incident is concerned, he has deposed
that on 14/08/2001 at about 8.30 a.m. outside the temple of Lord
Bhairavnath, the accused came and abused him. The accused also
gave him fist and kick blows and gave a dash because of which he fell
URS 4 of 8
5 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
on the floor. He has further deposed that Sarjerao Jadhav and
Dhondiram Pawar who were present on the scene, separated the
accused and the first informant. Thereafter he went to the police and
then to the Civil Hospital.
9. The prosecution has tried to corroborate his evidence by
examining PW 2 Sarjerao Jadhav and PW 3 Tukaram Jadhav. PW 2
Sarjerao Jadhav is the younger brother of PW 1. He has stated that at
around 8.30 a.m. when he came out of Bhairavnath Temple, he saw
the incident where the accused and the PW 1 were exchanging words
and thereafter the accused gave a dash to the complainant and made
him fall on the floor. He has further deposed that thereafter he
himself, along with PW 1's son Rupesh, took the PW 1 to the hospital.
In the cross-examination, he has mentioned that the police had never
approached him and he had not given any statement to the police.
Similarly, he has also admitted that there were two parties in their
village and the accused was belonging to the opposite party and there
was a political rivalry between them. Curiously, in his cross-
examination, he has stated that when he came out of the Mandir, he
saw the PW 1 sitting nearby on a platform. He has also stated that all
the persons had dispersed and the accused was also not present. This
throws doubt on the evidence of PW 2 and it is highly doubtful as to
whether he was actually present on the spot of incident at all to
witness the alleged incident.
URS 5 of 8
6 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
10. As far as the evidence of PW 3 Tukaram Jadhav is
concerned, his presence on the spot is not mentioned either by the PW
1 or by the PW 2. He appears to be a witness brought in by the
prosecution just to bolster their case. He has also admitted that the
police had not recorded his statement. Both these witnesses i.e. PW 2
and PW 3 do not depose about fist and kick blows having been
inflicted by the accused on PW 1.
11. The medical evidence in this case consists of the evidence
of PW 5 Dr. Rajesh Shinde and the medical certificate issued by him.
The medical certificate dated 08/09/2001 indicates that there was a
fracture on the right wrist of the complainant PW 1 and there was an
abrasion on the right knee. However, his deposition read with the
spot panchanama indicates that the surface on the spot of incident
was hard and therefore a fall on the surface could cause such injury.
It is admitted by the said Medical Officer that in older age,
osteoporosis develop which causes fracture of bones easily.
12. PW 4 Police Head Constable Balasaheb Sarade has
deposed about the investigation carried out by him and he has stated
that the offence vide C.R.No.148 of 2001 was registered at Satara
Taluka Police Station on 17/09/2001. Here, it is important to note
that the incident had taken place on 14/08/2001. The medical
certificate was issued on 08/09/2001. Thus, it appears that the FIR
was lodged after about one month from the date of the incident and
thereafter the investigation was carried out. Spot panchanama was
URS 6 of 8
7 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
carried out after registration of the FIR.
13. I have gone through the reasoning given by the learned
trial Judge while acquitting the accused. The learned trial Judge,
after scanning the evidence, has held that there was a reason for the
PW 1 to implicate the accused falsely. The learned Judge, by cogent
reasoning, has observed as to how the PW 2 and PW 3 could not be
believed. The learned Judge has further observed that one
Dhondiram Pawar who was named by the PW 1 in his compliant, was
not examined. After giving his reasoning, the learned Judge was
pleased to give benefit of doubt to the accused and was pleased to
acquit him.
14. The principles in respect of the considerations at the time
of deciding the appeal against acquittal are enunciated in many cases.
In the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph nos.12 and 13, has held thus :
"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a
competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the
trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused,
then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more
burden on the appellate court while dealing with the
appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no
fetters on the power of the appellate court to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts
and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed.
But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with
an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial
1 (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 220
URS 7 of 8
8 APEAL 1485-03.doc-930
grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The
appellate court while passing an order has to give clear
reasoning for such a conclusion.
13. It is no doubt true that there cannot be any
straitjacket formula as to under what circumstances the
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal,
but the same depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case............................"
15. Keeping these principles in mind, in my opinion, this is not
a case which calls for interference in the judgment and order of
acquittal, passed by the learned trial Judge, in view of the reasoning
given by him in his judgment. The view taken by the learned trial
Judge is a reasonable and a possible view and therefore, I am not
inclined to interference with the same. In the result, the appeal is
dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
URS 8 of 8
