Bombay High Court
State Of ... vs Suresh Pandhari Nagpure on 27 June, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
apeal no.292.2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer
Police Station Bori,District-Nagpur ..... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
Suresh S/o Pandhari Nagpure,
Aged about 25 years,
R/o Sonurli,P.S.Bori,
District-Nagpur ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.B.Jawade, Addl.P.P. for State.
Shri Amit A.Choubey,Advocate for respondent h/f advocate
A.K.Choubey
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JUNE 27,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
The respondent in the present appeal faced a charge in
the Court of 8th Additional District Judge and Assistant Sessions
Judge,Nagpur in S.T.No.389/1997. The respondent was charged
that on 5/11/1996 at about 12.00 hrs. at village Sonurli ,District-
Nagpur assaulted Bhaurao Sampatrao Wade and caused injuries
on his person with a weapon stick with an intention and under
such circumstances that it would have caused death and thus
charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was framed.
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:26 :::
apeal no.292.2001 2
2. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent the
prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. The learned trial Court
acquitted the respondent vide judgment and order dated
5/7/2001. Hence, this appeal.
3. I heard Shri N.B.Jawade, learned Addl.P.P. for State
and learned counsel Shri Amit A. Choubey for respondent holding
for learned counsel Shri A.K.Choubey. With the able assistance of
both the learned counsels I have gone through the record and
proceedings. F.I.R. (Exh.18) was lodged by Sampatrao Wade, the
father of injured Bhaurao(PW8). The F.I.R. (Exh.18) clearly spells
out the dispute in between the family of the complainant and in
the family of respondent-accused. The learned judge of the Court
below from the evaluation of the evidence as brought on record
found that inspite of availability of the independent witnesses the
investigating officer did not record their statements nor any
independent witness was examined. The learned trial Court has
kept in his mind while deciding the trial that the evidence of the
relatives cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are
interested witnesses. The learned Judge has also scrutinised the
law laid down in depth. The learned trial Court also noticed the
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:26 :::
apeal no.292.2001 3
discrepancies in the evidence inter-se of relative witnesses.
4. The injured was admitted in the hospital on 5/11/1996
at 9.15 a.m Dr.Suresh Umajirao Sonkusare(PW9) has specifically
stated that injury no.4 i.e. crushed injury on left hand and
dislocation of inter pharyngeal joint cannot be caused due to stick.
Neither the injured nor any of the prosecution witness is deposing
before the Court that the injured fell on the ground due to attack
by the respondent. Thus, the prosecution has not explained the
fourth injury noticed by doctor (PW9) on the person of the
injured. Dr. Suresh (PW9) in his examination in chief itself has
admitted that injuries as noticed by him can be caused either by
beating or also can by fall. In that contest, the suggestion given to
the prosecution witnesses that the injured was under the influence
of liquor and he was chased by dog of the respondent and in that
process he fell on the ground and caused injuries assume
importance.
5. Further, there is no scientific evidence to show that
there were blood stains on the clothes of the respondent or on the
stick.
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:51:26 :::
apeal no.292.2001 4
6. Merely because another view is possible is not sufficient
to upset the findings of acquittal. From the perusal of the
judgment, in the light of evidence brought on record no perversity
is noticed warranting interference in this appeal against acquittal.
Hence, appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE
(kitey)
