Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Samadhan Motiram Waghmare on 2 May, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
CRI. APPEAL NO.279.02.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.279 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Sonegaon, Nagpur. .. APPELLANT
.. VERSUS ..
Samadhan Motiram Waghmare,
Aged about 24 years,
Resident of Buddha Vihar,
Shivangaon, P.S. Sonegaon,
Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT
..........
Ms. T.H. Udeshi, APP for Appellant-State,
None for the Respondent.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : MAY 02, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal takes an exception to the judgment
and order dated 30.01.2002 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class (9th Court), Nagpur in Regular
Criminal Case No.367/1997 acquitting the sole accused of
the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2] The prosecution case in nutshell is as under :
(i) The first informant Jaisingh Pandurang
Ganvir was resident of Shivangaon within the
jurisdiction of Sonegaon Police Station. On
20.10.1997 at around 11.00 am, complainant was
selling vegetables in his shop near statue of
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Accused is resident of
the same locality. His brother Bajirao was a
mentally challenged person. At the time of
incident, Bajirao came to the shop of Jaisingh and
started hurling abuses. Pravin, brother of
complainant, was present in the shop.
Complainant and Pravin asked the accused to
pacify his brother. Accused got excited and told
the complainant, his sister and brother that due to
witchcraft played by them, his brother became
mad. There was exchange of words between
accused and Pravin. They abused each other.
That time accused assaulted Pravin with gupti on
his abdomen and fled away from the spot. Pravin
received grievous injury. He was shifted to Roy
Nursing Home. As he was not admitted in the
hospital, complainant took Pravin to medical
hospital.
(ii) At around 12.30 hours, Jaisingh went to
Sonegaon Police Station and lodged report.
Crime No.144/1997 was registered against the
accused. He was arrested on the same day.
At the instance of accused weapon was seized in
the presence of two panch witnesses.
Investigating Officer visited the place of
occurrence and recorded spot panchanama.
Accused was referred for medical examination.
The blood stained clothes of accused were seized
and panchanama of the same was drawn. On
completing investigation, chargesheet was filed
before the learned magistrate.
3] Charge came to be framed against the accused at
Exh.2. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Accused raised specific defence that quarrel took place
between his mentally ill brother, injured and witnesses and
not with him. Accused submitted that as their relations
were not cordial, he has been falsely involved by the
complainant.
4] Prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses in
support of its case. Considering the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and submissions made on behalf of the parties,
trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution could not
prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and in
consequence thereof, acquitted the accused. Being
aggrieved with the order of acquittal, State has preferred
the present appeal.
5] Heard Ms. T.H. Udeshi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the Appellant-State. With the assistance of
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this court has gone
through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW-3
Dhaneshwar, PW-4 Pravin, PW-5 Krushna, PW-6 Jaysinh,
PW-7 Mahadeorao and PW-8 Ramesh are the star witnesses
examined by the prosecution. From the evidence of these
witnesses, it can be seen that PW-4 Pravin, PW-5 Krushna,
and PW-6 Jaysinh are closely related and interested
witnesses. PW-3 Dhaneshwar, PW-7 Mahadeorao and PW-8
Ramesh are the independent witnesses according to the
prosecution. On close scrutiny of evidence of PW-4 Pravin,
PW-5 Krushna and PW-6 Jaysinh, it is apparent that their
evidence suffer from material omissions and contradictions.
So far as independent witnesses are concerned, there is
inordinate delay in recording their statements during
investigation. The delay has not been satisfactorily
explained by the investigating agency. Medical evidence is
inconsistent and on seizure of weapon, PW-11 Prabhakar
and PW-13 Sahebrao do not support the prosecution case.
6] In view of the material inconsistencies in the
evidence of PW-3 to PW-8, medical evidence and evidence
on seizure of weapon, trial court found that guilt of the
accused was not brought at home beyond reasonable doubt.
The view taken by the trial court appears to be a reasonable
and possible view. No perversity is noticed in the findings
recorded by the learned magistrate. Hence, there is no
reason to take a view different than taken by the trial court.
7] Criminal Appeal No.279/2002 stands dismissed.
No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
