State Of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Kelwad vs Namdeo Keshaorao Mankar
2017 Latest Caselaw 2593 Bom

                                                               apeal321.03


                                      1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                       Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2003

 The State of Maharashtra,
 through Police Station Officer,
 Kelwad Police Station,
 Kelwad, Tq. Kalmeshwar,
 Distt. Nagpur.                               .....           Appellant


                                   Versus


 Namdeo son of Keshaorao Mankar,
 aged about 30 years,
 resident of Telgaon,
 Tq. Kalmeshwar,
 Distt. Nagpur.                               .....        Respondent.

                                    *****
 Mr. Palshikar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State.
 None for the respondent.
                                    *****




::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2017 00:59:29 :::
                                                                     apeal321.03


                                        2



                                 CORAM :          A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                                 Date        :    22nd May, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT:

01. This appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, takes exception to the jdugment of acquittal dated

30th January, 2003. The respondent, who was tried for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, stands acquitted by virtue of the aforesaid judgment.

02. According to the prosecution, the agricultural field of one

Pramilabai, the aunt of the accused, is adjoining the field of the

accused. Both fields are divided by a common boundary. On 28th

January, 2000, when the accused was irrigating his field, there was an

altercation between the complainant and the accused with regard to

drawing of water from the well. According to the prosecuton, the

accused gave abuses to the complainant and caught hold of her. After

felling her down, he pressed her neck and tore her blouse. On that

basis, the crime came to be registered. The accused was accordingly

tried for said offence and by the impugned judgment he came to be

acquitted on the ground that the case of the prosecution was not duly

proved.

apeal321.03

03. Shri Palshikar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, by referring

to the deposition of prosecution witnesses, submitted that the case of

the prosecution had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He

submitted that the evidence of PW 1 could not have been discarded,

when, in fact, she was the victim of said assault. He referred to the

deposition of PW 8 and submitted that injuries sustained were due to

assault by the accused. He, therefore, submitted that the learned

Judge of the Sessions Court was not justified in disbelieving the case of

the prosecution.

04. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

However, with the assistance of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, I have

gone through the evidence on record.

05. The complainant and the accused are related to each other

and their agricultural fields are adjoining. These fields were subject-

matter of partition between the two families and the dispute is alleged

to have cropped up over drawing of water from the common well.

06. According to PW 1 - Pramila, when the accused had

assaulted her, one Meghraj Belekar had come there running. This

apeal321.03

Meghraj Belekar has been examined as PW 7 and he has deposed that

he was present in his field and as he heard some noises from the field

of the complainant, he had gone there. He had seen one Pandurang

Wagh as well as the husband of the complainant along with the mother

of the accused and other releatives of the complainant there. This

witness has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to

alleged assault. Moreover, PW 1 does not refer to those persons who

were seen by PW 7 when he went to the place of the incident. Thus,

except the deposition of PW 1, there is no other corroborative material

on record.

07. The deposition of PW 8 indicates that according to him, the

injuries were likely to be caused due to a hard and rough object.

According to PW 1, the accused had pressed her neck with his hands.

Considering the fact that the parties are related to each other as well

as the fact that their fields are adjoining to each other, I find that in

absence of any other corroborative material, the learned Judge of the

trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the

prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasoanble doubt. In

absence of any perversity in the impugned judgment, there is no

reason to interfere with the same.

apeal321.03

08. Accordingly, the appeal fails. The same, therefore,

dismissed.

Judge

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|