Bombay High Court
The State Of Maha. Thru. P.S.O vs Ramkisan Jijeba Ingole & 3 Ors on 11 May, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.175 OF 2007
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.175 OF 2007
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Shirpur,
Taluka Malegaon, District Washim. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Ramkisan Gijeba Ingole,
Aged about 52 years.
2. Namdeo Ramkisan Ingole,
Aged about 30 years.
3. Narayan Gijeba Ingole,
Aged about 45 years.
4. Anil Gijeba Ingole.
All R/o Shirsala, Taluka Malegaon,
District Washim. ..... Respondents.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:22:43 :::
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
2
==============================================================
Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, Addll.P.P. for the Appellant/State.
Shri Swapnil Joshi, Adv. h/f Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior
Counsel for the Respondents.
==============================================================
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2007
Bajirao s/o Tukaram Ingole,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Sirsala,
Taluka Malegaon, District Washim. Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station
Officer, Police Station
Sirpur, Taluka Malegaon,
District Washim.
2. Ramkisan Gijeba Ingole,
Aged about 52 years.
3. Namdeo Ramkisan Ingole,
Aged about 30 years.
4. Narayan Gijeba Ingole,
Aged about 45 years.
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:22:43 :::
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
3
5. Anil Gijeba Ingole,
Aged 45 years.
Non-applicant 2 to 5
Resident of Sirsala, Taluka
Malegaon, District Washim. ..... Non-applicants.
==============================================================
None appears for the Applicant.
Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, Addll.P.P. for State.
Shri Swapnil Joshi, Adv. h/f Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior
Counsel for NA Nos.2 to 5.
==============================================================
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.
DATE : MAY 11, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. By this criminal appeal, the State takes
exception to judgment and order passed by learned 2nd
Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on 16.3.2007
in Sessions Trial No.71 of 2005, whereby learned
Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the
.....4/-
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
respondents/accused of the offence punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The respondents/accused were charged with
assault injuring Bajirao which in the opinion of the
prosecution was an intention to cause death of Bajirao
and as such the offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code is attracted. Learned Judge of the Court
below framed the charge against the
respondents/accused. The respondents/accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of
the trial, the learned Judge of the Court below
acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid
offence.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms
.....5/-
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
H.N. Jaipurkar for the appellant/State vehemently
submits that acquittal recorded by learned Judge of the
Court below is only on the ground that though learned
Judge of the Court below came to the conclusion that
injuries sustained by the victim are grievous in nature,
the prosecution has failed to produce on record
experience of the medical witness i.e. PW10 and such his
evidence cannot be accepted.
4. On the contrary, Advocate Shri Swapnil Joshi
h/f learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar for the
respondents/accused, submits that since learned Judge
of the Court below has given sound and cogent reasons
in his judgment while recording order of acquittal, no
interference to the same as such is warranted.
5. Learned Judge of the Court below, while
.....6/-
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
arriving at the finding that the prosecution failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, has found that
the respondents/accused had also sustained various
injuries and that it was the case of the defence that they
have lodged their F.I.R. which was prior in point of
time. The defence witness has also examined in support
of the defence case. Learned Judge of the Court below
has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to place on record the real
genesis of the incident and as such has not come to the
Court with clean hands.
6. Learned Judge of the Court below has further
found that the prosecution has also not explained the
various injuries sustained by the respondents/accused.
7. Learned Judge of the Court below has further
.....7/-
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
found that though the respondents/accused are said to
be four in numbers and are said to be armed with axe,
only injury sustained by the victim was one contusion
wound over head and, therefore, it cannot be said that
the respondents/accused had an intention to cause
death of the victim. Learned Judge of the Court below
has further found that if the respondents/accused really
had an intention to caused the death of the victim, they
could have cause injury by the sharp side and not by the
blunt side of the axe.
8. The law on interference in an appeal against
acquittal is by now well crystalized by the Honourable
Apex Court that unless finding given by learned Judge
of the Court below is found to be perverse or impossible,
it is not permissible to this Court interfering with the
finding of acquittal.
.....8/-
Judgment
apeal175.07 2
In the result, since no case is made out
warranting any interference, the criminal appeal fails
and is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the criminal appeal, the
criminal revision application also stands rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
