Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Sahadeorao Kadu vs The State Of Mah. And Anr on 10 October, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
apeal.378.03.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.378 OF 2003
Dnyaneshwar s/o Sahadeorao Kadu,
Aged 44 years,
Occupation : Service as A.P.I,
Police Station, Wadki,
Tahsil Ralegaon, District Yavatmal. .... Appellant
-- Versus -
01] The State of Maharashtra.
02] Maya w/o Kisanrao Khandekar,
Aged 33 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o Khanjamanagar,
Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati. .... Respondent
Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri N.H. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.A. Sahu, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenges the judgment and order dated 20/06/2003
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in
Special Case No.1/1999. By the said judgment and order,
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:11:42 :::
apeal.378.03.jud 2
accused though acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Atrocities Act' for short), came to be convicted of the
offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for short). The
sentence imposed by the trial Court is as under :
Section Sentence Fine
294 IPC R.I. for 1 month Fine of Rs.100/-, in default, S.I. for 7 Days.
506 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine of Rs.200/-, in default, S.I. for 15 Days.
02] For the sake of convenience, appellant is referred in
his original status as accused as he was referred before the trial
Court.
03] The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated in
brief as under :
i. It is the case of complainant - Maya Kisanrao
Khandekar that on 05/05/1991, there was a dispute
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:11:42 :::
apeal.378.03.jud 3
between two groups on hoisting a panchsheel flag in
the village, resulting into a riot. The complaints were
filed by both the groups. In one of the crimes
registered, complainant was arrayed as an accused.
ii. Appellant - accused was P.S.I. at the relevant time.
According to complainant, when she had been to
Police Station, accused hurled abuses and threatened
her. She filed a complaint before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Achalpur. In the complaint, she
alleged that accused abused her in the name of caste
and threatened her.
iii. On receiving complaint, learned Magistrate conducted
inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. As offence under the Atrocities Act was
alleged, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
iv. Trial Court framed Charge vide Exh.29. Accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution examined in all five witnesses to
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:11:42 :::
apeal.378.03.jud 4
substantiate the guilt of accused. Considering the
evidence of complainant and eye-witnesses, trial
Court held that charge under the Atrocities Act has
not been proved against the accused. However,
accused was held guilty of the offences punishable
under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and sentenced him
as stated hereinabove in paragraph 1. Being
aggrieved by the order of conviction, accused has
preferred this appeal.
04] Heard Shri R.M. Daga, learned Counsel for appellant,
Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent no.1 and Shri S.A. Sahu, learned Counsel for
respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that
so far as offences under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, there is
no evidence against the accused. It is submitted that evidence
of complainant is not fully corroborated by the eye-witnesses.
According to the learned Counsel, material omissions have been
elicited in the cross-examination of complainant, which would
indicate that she has improved her version and she is not a
reliable witness. Learned Counsel submitted that even for the
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:11:42 :::
apeal.378.03.jud 5
offence under Section 294 IPC, there is no cogent and convincing
evidence against the accused.
05] The learned A.P.P. fully supports the judgment and
order passed by the trial Court.
06] Perused the impugned judgment and order, reasoning
recorded by the trial Court and the evidence of material
witnesses. Considering the evidence of complainant and eye
witnesses as well as the manner of incident stated in the
complaint and the evidence, this Court for the below mentioned
reasons is of the view that offences under Sections 294 and 506
of IPC have not been proved against the accused.
07] The entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of
complainant PW-1 Maya Khandekar and two star witnesses PW-2
Vanmala Bhatkar and PW-3 Suman Dongardive. On careful
scrutiny of evidence of complainant Maya, it can be seen that
regarding alleged threats, she has made a vague statement.
She filed complaint in the year 1991. Her deposition came to be
recorded in 2003. After 12 years, she could state in the evidence
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:11:42 :::
apeal.378.03.jud 6
alleged abuses in verbatim with few words here and there. This
creates doubt and, therefore, her testimony is to be considered
in the light of evidence of eye-witnesses.
08] So far as PW-2 Vanmala Bhatkar and PW-3 Suman
Dongardive are concerned, it is apparent from their evidence
that accused abused the complainant in the name of caste. Trial
Court has held that offence under the Atrocities Act has not been
established. So far as utterances are concerned, both the
witnesses do not corroborate the testimony of complainant. It is
also evident from the facts elicited in the cross-examination of
complainant that she made material improvements in the course
of evidence. The omissions have been brought on record in
paragraphs 7, 8 & 9 of the cross examination.
09] In the light of the above, it would be unsafe to place
reliance on the sole uncorroborated testimony of complainant
and this Court finds that for want of corroboration, judgment and
order of conviction is unsustainable in law. Hence, the following
order.
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:11:42 :::
apeal.378.03.jud 7
ORDER
I. Criminal Appeal No.378/2003 is allowed.
II. Impugned judgment and order dated 20/06/2003
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Achalpur in Special Case No.1/1999 is quashed and
set aside.
III. Appellant-accused Dnyaneshwar Sahadeorao Kadu is
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections
294 and 506 of IPC.
IV. Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the
appellant/accused
V. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J)
