Gangaram Mahadev Wadkar vs Rajaram Mahadev Wadkar
2017 Latest Caselaw 3828 Bom

                                      1                       211) apeal 182-02.doc

sas
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                 CRIMINAL APPELL ATE JURISDICTION

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 OF 2002

      Gangaram Mahadev Wadkar,
      Age 79 years, Occ. Nil, R/o.
      Satalwadi, Taluka Wai,
      District Satara.                                   ..Appellant.

                      V/s.

      1)     Rajaram Mahadev Wadkar,
             Age: 50 years, Occ: Service,

      2.     Santosh Rajaram Wadkar,
             Age: 30 years, Occ: Service,

      3)     Gulab Shankar Wadkar,
             Age: 24 years, Occ: Education,

             All residing at Satelwadi, Post
             Parkhandi, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara.          ..Respondents.


      Mr.J.K.Jadhav for the Appellant.

      Mrs.M.R.Tidke,APP for the Respondent-State.

      Mr.Siddesh Pilankar i/b. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Respondent Nos.1
      to 3.

                                            Coram : N.M.Jamdar, J.

Date : 30 June 2017

2 211) apeal 182-02.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT

The Appellant-original complainant has challenged the judgment and order dated 28 January 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai acquitting the Respondents- accused of the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Accused No.1is the real brother of the complainant. Accused No.2 is the son of Respondent No.1 i.e. nephew of the complainant. Accused No.3 is also nephew of the complainant. According to the complainant, the incident took place on 10 August 1996, when the accused had brought Gobar Gas tank in a bullock cart and started to put the articles in front of the house whereupon a quarrel ensued between the parties. According to the complainant, the accused No.1 abused the complainant and hit him on his head with a wooden stick. A complaint was lodged with the police who did not take action. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate. The complainant examined himself and two witnesses i.e. a doctor and the son of the complainant. The learned Magistrate, after assessing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the case was not satisfactorily proved against the Respondents-accused and by the impugned judgment acquitted the Respondents-accused.

3 211) apeal 182-02.doc

3. Heard Mr.J.K. Jadhav, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr.Siddesh Pilankar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mrs.M.R.Tidke, learned APP for the State.

4. Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error in holding that the case of the complainant was doubtful and there were inconsistencies in the evidence. He submitted that the complainant had established that he was assaulted by a wooden stick, which was supported by the medical certificate. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned order.

5. The complainant and the accused are closely related, being brothers and nephews. It is admitted by the complainant that the relations between the complainant and the accused were strained and a civil suit was pending between the parties. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant examined himself and his son and there was no other independent witness. In view of this position, the learned Magistrate assessed the evidence on record with care. The complainant had filed complaint to the police immediately and thereafter filed a complaint before the Magistrate. According to the complainant, the incident took place on 10 August 1996. The complaint before the Magistrate was filed on 23 August 1996. In this complaint, the genesis of the quarrel was given as installation of Gobar Gas tank. When the complaint was immediately filed with

4 211) apeal 182-02.doc

the police, this was not the reason given. If the installation of Gobar Gas forcibly by the Respondents had led to a quarrel and then the assault, it would have been on the forefront of the information given to the police but, some other reason has been stated. This discrepancy has been noted by the learned Magistrate. Furthermore, there is variance in the evidence of the complainant and his son regarding the manner in which the assault took place. In the complaint before the police, the complainant did not state that the accused beat the complainant by stick. Taking note of this contradictions in the complaint before the police and complaint before the Magistrate, variance in the evidence of the complainant and his son, the strained relations between the complainant and the accused, and absence of any independent witness, the learned Magistrate, rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the Respondents- accused.

6. The alleged incident took place in the year 1996 i.e. almost 31 years ago. The learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant- complainant is not contacting him.

7. It cannot be said that the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is perverse. There is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed.

                                            (N.M.Jamdar, J.)





                                5              211) apeal 182-02.doc