Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Vasant Laxman Yadav on 2 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Shridhar Sutar 1 204.Apeal-561.03.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
(Trough Medha Police Station,
Taluka Jawali, District Satara) ... Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
Vasant Laxman Yadav
Age 61 years, Occu. Agriculture,
Resident of Ambeghar Turf,
Kudal, Taluka Jawali,
District Satara ... Respondent
(Orig. Accused)
.....
Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Appellant-State.
None for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : 2nd JUNE, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The present matter is called out from specifically listed final
hearing board in Summer vacation.
2. The present State Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated
13th January, 2003, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Medha, at Medha, District Satara, whereby the accused-
1 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 2 204.Apeal-561.03.doc
respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. (I.P.C.). This
Court, on 12th September, 2003 admitted the Appeal.
3. The complainant and the accused are in relation. The
land/area in question was in issue. On 12th November, 2001, at
about 7.00 a.m. when complainant about to untie the ropes of the
peddy heaps, the accused Vasant Yadav came, and asked her to
remove the paddy heaps, and not to untie on the land. As she
refused and continued to untie the ropes, the accused kicked her
in the waist. She fell down and received injury to her mouth. The
accused gave beating to her with hands and abused her also. The
complaint therefore came to be filed. The investigating agency
referred the complainant for medical treatment to Primary Health
Centre, Medha. The Panchnama of the spot was made . The
statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. As
he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty, the trial proceeded.
4. The prosecution examined witnesses. The accused examined
one defence witness. After considering the evidence as well as the
arguments, the learned Judge by the reasoned impugned order
2 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 3 204.Apeal-561.03.doc
has acquitted the accused. Therefore, this State Appeal.
5. The law with regard to the power and scope of interference
in State Appeal is settled. It is necessary to see whether there is
any perversity, illegality and/or case is made out to interfere with
the reasoned order of acquittal. All issues are as interlinked and
interconnected decided accordingly by the common reasons.
6. Heard the learned APP for the Appellant who read the
evidence and the judgment. After considering the same I am also
of the view that, no case is made out to disturb and/or interfere
with the finding given by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is held
that the prosecution failed to prove that on 12th November, 2001
at about 7.00 a.m. the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt or
any hurt to the complainant and therefore not committed offence
punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of the I.P.C. The finding is
also rightly recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that,
on that day the accused intentionally insulted and thereby gave
provocation to the complainant to break the public peace and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 of
I.P.C. and/or there was any criminal intimidation by threatening
3 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 4 204.Apeal-561.03.doc
the complainant as contemplated under Section 506 of I.P.C.
7. The accused caused any grievous hurt or any hurt as
contemplated, apart from the incident, the doctor, who examined
the complainant, in his evidence not supported the case of the
complainant and/or the prosecution of the grievous hurt. The
evidence and the injury certificate so placed on record itself
reflects the simple injury and no case of any grievous injury. The
doctor has certified that such injuries could be caused by various
factors and reasons. It is noted by the learned Judge that apart
from simple injury mentioned in the medical certificate by PW5
Dr. Bhosale, it shows that the complainant was examined on 12 th
December, 2001 though the said witness stated to have examined
the complainant on 12th November, 2001. No explanation is placed
on record by the prosecution on this aspect. This also means that
the certificate was issued after one month of the incident. This
therefore falsifies the prosecution case that the complainant was
examined on 12th November, 2001. The prosecution, as recorded
by the learned Judge, even failed to prove the actual incident
between the accused and the complainant who are in close
relations. The defence witness, who was present, supports the case
4 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 5 204.Apeal-561.03.doc
of defence that there was no physical quarrel took place except
oral arguments on the issue. No third party was examined even to
support the incident as stated by the complainant and her
daughter and son (PW2 and PW4 respectively). Even the presence
of PW2 and PW4 at the time of incident on the spot was doubtful
as the same was not stated by the complainant in her statement.
8. All the prosecution witnesses are interested witness being
the daughter and son of the complainant. The complainant even
denied the relations being cousin of the accused and the existence
of the disputes and the issue about land on which incident took
place. There is contradiction in the testimony of the complaint and
PW2/PW4. The prosecution story appears to be concocted as even
after the incident the complainant, went to the Police Station and
was not taken to hospital by the daughter or the son, if they were
present at the time of incident. The exchange of words between
the complainant and the accused, and the complainant started
abusing and not the accused this-defence case through DW1 Gulab
remained intact even in the cross examination.
5 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 6 204.Apeal-561.03.doc
9. The learned Judge has also noted that the exaggeration
made by the complainant in her examination-in-chief that the
accused sat on her body and kicked her, due to which she
received bleeding injury to her teeth. PW2 and PW4 deposed this
also in support of the same and further stated that they rescued
the complainant from the accused, but has rightly noted that there
was no such facts mentioned in the complaint Exhibit-13 and
Exhibit-12 by the complainant. Therefore, the statement of PW2
and PW4 recorded , is doubtful and so also their presence. In the
cross examination, the complainant has admitted the strained
relationship between her and the accused on account of dispute
between them regarding the spot of incident.
10. Taking overall view of the matter and keeping in mind the
scope and purpose and power of Appellate Court while dealing
with the case of State against acquittal and as there is no
perversity or any illegality and as the view so expressed by the
learned Judge and the finding so arrived at of acquittal, in my
view, therefore, need no interference and the appeal is required to
be dismissed.
6 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 7 204.Apeal-561.03.doc
O R D E R
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The bail bond, if any, is cancelled. No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
7 of 7
