State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Akola vs Dayaram Shriram Pote And Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 2674 Bom

 Judgment                                               1                                  wp698.03.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2003

 State of Maharashtra through
 Police Station Officer, 
 Police Station Civil Lines, 
 Akola. 
                                                                             ....  APPELLANT.
                                         //  VERSUS //

 1. Dayaram S/o. Shriram Pote,
    aged 51 years, Occ. : Business,

 2. Pravin Dayaram Pote,
    aged about 18 years, 
    Both R/o. Amrut Nagar, 
    Akola. 
                                                   .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                     .
 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri Neeraj Patil, A.P.P. for Appellant. 
 None for the respondents. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MAY 30, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. None appears for the respondents. Heard Shri Neeraj Patil,

A.P.P. for the appellant/ State.

2. The State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment passed

by the trial Court acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 447, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is :

Judgment 2 wp698.03.odt

Dattatraya Eknath Wawage lodged report with the Police

Station that on 29th April, 2001 at about 6.00 p.m. when he returned to his

house from market and was parking his cycle, both the accused entered the

compound of his house and started beating him by giving blows of fists, they

twisted his fingers, abused his wife and threatened to kill her and thereafter

both the accused had gone to the terrace of their house and had thrown

bricks which hit wife of the complainant over her head because of which she

sustained bleeding injuries. The complainant alleged that the wife and

daughter of accused No.1 Dayaram also hurled abuses. After the report was

lodged the investigation was conducted and chargesheet was filed before the

learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate framed and explained charges to

the accused and as the accused did not accept the guilt, conducted trial.

After conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate recorded that the

prosecution has failed to prove commission of the crime by the accused and

acquitted the accused.

4. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P., I have examined the

record and have gone through the impugned judgment. I find that the

learned Magistrate has exhaustively dealt with the evidence and the material

on record. The learned Magistrate, after examining the evidence of P.W. 2-

Dattatraya Eknathrao Wawage (complainant) has found that his evidence

does not inspire confidence.

Judgment 3 wp698.03.odt

5. The prosecution has examined P.W. 3-Jyoti wife of Dattatraya

Wawage. The learned Magistrate has recorded that there are material

omissions and contradictions in the statement given by her earlier and in her

evidence and they are unexplained. The prosecution has examined P.W.-5-

Madhukar Ghaiwat (Investigating Officer) who had admitted that though he

had seen the brick by which wife of the complainant was hit lying on the

spot, he has not seized the brick. Again there is no explanation for this lapse

on the part of the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate has further

recorded that this witness i.e. Investigating Officer has admitted that there

were some omissions in recording the statement of P.W. 3-Jyoti wife of

Dattatraya Wawage. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e.

P.W. 6-Balu Dattatraya More, P.W. 7-Pralhad Take and P.W. 1-Suresh

Sonappa Parmar are chance witnesses and their evidence is of no useful

purpose to the prosecution.

6. After going through the impugned judgment and the evidence

of the witnesses, I find that the learned Magistrate has properly appreciated

the material on record. The learned A.P.P. has not been able to point out any

perversity in the impugned judgment which necessitates interference by this

Court.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE RRaut..