Bombay High Court
Madhukar Roopsingh Rathod & 5 Ors vs State Of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Mahagaon on 26 September, 2017
Bench: Swapna Joshi
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.769/2003
1) Madhukar s/o Roopsingh Rathod
Aged about 42 years
2) Babusingh s/o Lalsingh Rathod
Aged about 47 years
3) Charan s/o Lalsingh Rathod
Aged about 40 years
4) Uttam s/o Digambar Rathod
Aged about 32 years
5) Ramesh s/o Remani Pawar
Aged about 32 years
6) Prakash s/o Ramaji Rathod
Aged about 36 years
All R/o Kondari
Police Station : Mahagaon
Dist.Yavatmal. .. APPELLANTS
versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer, Mahagaon
Dist. Yavatmal. .. RESPONDENT
...............................................................................................................................................
Mr. S.D. Dharaskar, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. N.H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State
................................................................................................................................................
CORAM: MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.
DATED: 26th September, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
1. This Appeal is preferred at the instance of six appellants/ accused.
However, during the pendency of the Appeal, accused no.4-Uttam Digambar Rathod,
expired.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.12.2003 in
Sessions Trial No.113/2000 delivered by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Pusad, convicting the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') for
the offences punishable under sections 147,148, 324 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer S.I. for one year each, under each of
the Sections, which are directed to run concurrently, the present Appeal is filed.
3. I have heard Mr. S.D.Dharaskar, learned counsel for the appellants, and
Mr. N.H.Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. With their
assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case, minutely.
4. Brief facts giving rise to the instant Appeal may be summarized as
under:-
The complainant-Sudhakar Rathod (PW1) is the son of injured
Dhansingh Rathod (PW2). They were residing at village Kondari, Tq.Mahagaon, Dist.
Yavatmal. The accused 1 to 6 are also residents of the same village. It is the case of
the prosecution that on 14.10.2000 at about 11.00 am PW2 Dhansingh was sitting in
courtyard of his house and at the relevant time the complainant PW1-Sudhakar was
having a lunch in his house. Since the complainant PW1-Sudhakar heard noise of
commotion, he came out of the house and saw that accused 1 to 6 were beating
Dhansingh (PW 2). The accused no.1 was saying to Dhansingh as to why he always
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
talks against the accused. On this, the accused no.1 delivered a blow of stick on the
head of PW2-Dhansingh; accused no.2 gave a blow of stick on the right hand
shoulder of PW2-Dhansingh; accused no.3 delivered a stick blow on the right thigh
and right heap of PW2 and all other accused assaulted Dhansingh, by means of sticks.
In the meantime, PW1 Sudhakar went to rescue his father PW2. At that time, accused
4 to 6 assaulted him too and as a result of which, he also sustained injuries on both
his legs. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 then ran away from the place of the
incident. He boarded one jeep, came to the place of the incident and took his father in
the said jeep and proceeded to the Hospital at Mahagaon. PW2 was referred to
Yavatmal and from Yavatmal, to a Hospital at Nagpur.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that the PW1-Sudhakar was also
examined by the Doctor at the Hospital. He lodged the complaint against the accused
persons on the same day. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused assaulted
PW2 on account of political rivalry due to Gram Panchayat elections.
6. At the relevant time, PW9-Mahadeo, Head Constable was attached to
Police Station, Mahagaon. He recorded the complaint (Exh.41) of PW1-Sudhakar and
on the basis of said complaint he registered the offence. PW9 referred the injured
Dhansingh (PW 2) for medical examination at Primary Health Centre, Mahagaon. P.I.
Yusufpeer Sayyad (PW12) visited the place of the incident and recorded the spot
Panchnama (Exh.53). He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He arrested the
accused persons. On 15.10.2000 he seized the weapons involved in the offence i.e.
sticks under Panchnama (Exhs. 55 to 60 respectively). He seized the bloodstained
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
clothes of the injured (Exh.61) on 20.10.2000. PW12 recorded the statements of the
witnesses. He sent the clothes of the victim to C.A. office for its analysis. After
completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in the Court. The case was
committed to the court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed the charge and on
analysis of the evidence and after hearing both the sides, convicted the accused, as
aforesaid. Hence this Appeal.
7. Shri S.D. Dharaskar, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
learned trial Judge has not considered the testimony of the witnesses in its right
perspective and has erroneously convicted the accused. Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned
APP contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused.
8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined in all 13 witnesses, out of which the relevant witnesses are PW 2-Dhansingh
Rathod, PW1-Sudhakar Rathod, PW3-Sukhdeo Pardhi, PW4-Shankar Rathod and the
Investigating Officer PW12 Yusuf Sayyad.
9. As far as the testimony of the injured PW2-Dhansingh is concerned, he
has stated that on the date of the incident at about 11.00 am, he was sitting in the
courtyard of his house, accused Madhukar, Babusingh, Uttam, Prakash, Ramesh and
Charan approached him, armed with sticks and they started quarreling with him.
Accused Madhukar asked him as why he was always taking against them. PW2 made
query as to why they have come to his house. On this Madhukar threatened that he
wanted to finish him and delivered a blow of stick on his head. He instigated the other
accused persons to finish him off. On this, accused-Babusingh delivered a blow on right
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
hand shoulder and the other accused persons started assaulting him by means of
sticks. He received a fracture injury on right hand thumb as he tried to save himself.
The accused Charan assaulted PW2 by means of stick on his right thigh and hip.
Accused-Charan also assaulted by means of stick on his right side ribs. Thus, in this
manner, PW 2 sustained injuries on his entire body. He sustained bleeding injury on
his head due to which his clothes were stained with blood. PW2 stated that at the
time of the incident the ladies from his family started shouting and on hearing of their
shouts, his son Sudhakar,in order to rescue PW2 interfered. The accused persons also
assaulted Sudhakar. Sudhakar (PW1) ran away from the place of incident in order to
save himself. Sukhdeo (PW 3) also rushed to the spot, so also Anusuyabai (PW8)
also came to the spot and offered water to PW2. After some time, his son Sudhakar
(PW 1) came with a jeep and took him to the Police Station, Mahagaon. The
complaint was lodged by his son Sudhakar(PW1). In the cross-examination, the
testimony of PW2 is not shattered. It was suggested as there was quarrel between
himself and accused-Madhukar on account of the election, he has falsely implicated
the accused persons in the present case. There are no material contradictions and
omissions in his version.
10. The testimony of PW1-Sudhakar is corroborated with the testimony of
PW2-Dhansingh on all material aspects. According to PW1-Sudhakar, who is the
complainant and injured, when he was taking meals inside his house with his family
members, he heard shouts from outside his house. Hence he rushed and saw that
accused Madhukar, Babusingh, Charan, Uttam, Ramesh and Prakash were assaulting
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
his father by means of stick in the courtyard of his house. Accused-Madhukar
delivered a blow of stick on the head of his father while accused Babusingh delivered a
stick blow on the right hand shoulder of his father; accused-Charan delivered a stick
blow on the right thigh of his father. When PW1 tried to rescue his father, accused
Uttam, Ramesh and Prakash assaulted PW1 by means of sticks as a result of which he
sustained injuries on both of his legs. He ran away towards the field due to the fear of
the accused persons. Then he boarded one jeep, picked up his father and proceeded
to Police Station, Mahagaon. His complaint was recorded by police (Exh. 41). PW1
categorically stated that the incident took place due to the political rivalry of allegations
of Gram Panchayat. The wife of his brother had contested the Gram Panchayat
elections and it he said elections the Sarpanch of the village was elected form his
political group and hence on account of political rivalry and enmity the accused
persons had assaulted them.
11. In the exhaustive cross-examination of PW1-Sudhakar, few
improvements were pointed out in his version with regard to the fact that the accused
Madhukar delivered a stick blow on the head of his father, and accused-Babusingh
gave a blow of stick on the shoulder of his father. PW1 clarified that the accused
persons had surrounded him and simultaneously they were assaulting his father by
means of sticks. The testimony of PW1-Sudhakar is not shattered in the cross-
examination on material aspects and is in consonance with his complaint (Exh. 41).
12. The testimony of PW1-Sudhakar and PW2-Dhansingh is also supported
by PW3-Sukhdeo and PW4-Shankar Rathod. PW3 stated that when he heard the
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
noise, he came out of the house and saw that Madhukar, Charan, Babusingh, Prakash,
Ramesh and Uttam assaulting Dhansingh(PW2) by means of sticks. Dhansingh fell on
the ground due to the said assault. Dhansingh sustained injuries on his head and due
to bleeding injury, his clothes were stained with blood. PW3 stated that Sudhakar
PW1 was also hit by the sticks. Hence he ran away from the spot. PW3 categorically
stated that the accused persons had assaulted PW1 and PW2 due to political rivalry
on account of the Gram Panchayat elections. His testimony is not shattered in the
cross-examination. According to him, the family members of the complainant were
present at the place of the incident and no one else was was at that place.
13. Thus, the testimony of PW 1-sudhakar, PW2-Dhansingh and PW3-
Sukhdeo corroborate with the testimony of each other and there are no material
discrepancies in their version. Their testimony unequivocally shows that all the accused
persons had assaulted PW2- Dhansingh by means of sticks and accused nos. 4 to 6
had assaulted PW1- Sudhakar that too by means of sticks.
14. The testimony of PW4-Shankar who is the panch witness on the point
of seizure of sticks from all accused, has categorically stated about the seizure of the
sticks in the respective houses of the accused persons at their instance. The
memorandum panchnamas as well as seizure panchnamas were drawn accordingly at
Exhs 55 to 61 respectively.
15. PW10-Dr.Ganesh Rajkondwar, the Medical Officer deposed that he
examined Dhansingh (PW 2) and found the following injuries on his body :-
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
1) Lacerated wound over scalp on right side. Occipital parieto region
slightly oblique, aged irregular, bone deep, no history of bleeding through
nose and ear. 3" x 1/2" present bleeding present. Caused by hard and
blunt object. Age of injury within 3 to 4 hours. The said injury may heal
within 7 to 10 days if no complications arise.
2) History of fracture right acromio clavicular joint and lower 1/3rd
clavicular cripitious present. Caused by hard and blunt object. Age of injury
within 3 to 4 hours. The above injury is associated with contusion over
right side shoulder joint anteriorly oblique 2" x 1" caused by hard and
blunt object. Patient is referred to General Hospital Yavatmal for X-ray of
right shoulder joint A.P. And is lateral view to rule out fracture and needful
treatment and opinion regarding time required for healing if fracture
detected on X-ray.
3) contusion over right heap joint 3 "x 2" roughly circular. Movement
of right heap joint are painful and restricted. Fracture /dislocation of right
heap joint, caused by hard and blunt object. Age of injury within 3 to 4
hours. Patient is referred to General Hospital for X-ray heap joint (right)
A.P. and lateral view it rule out fracture and needful treatment and
opinion for time required for healing if fractures dislocation detected on
X-ray.
4) Contusion with laceration over left leg middle 1/3rd region posterior
1" x 1/2" caused by hard and blunt object. Age of injury within 3 to 4 hours,
may heal within 7 days if no complications arise.
5) Lacerated wound over right palm, below the base of right thumb.
Roughly circular 1 cm ½" caused by hard and rough object. Age of injury
within 3 to 4 hours. May heal within 7 days if no complication arise."
16. PW10 -Dr.Ganesh Rajkondwar issued the medical certificate Exh.72. He
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
failed to state whether the patient had received any fracture injury. He stated that the
injuries were possible by sticks. PW 10 categorically stated that all the injuries were
simple in nature.
17. The Medical Officer PW11-Dr.Rajesh Rudrawar deposed that on
20.10.2000, he examined the patient, namely Sudhakar and found the following injuries
on his person:
1) Contusion dorsal aspect of left popletiel fossa horizontally located.
It was caused by hard and blunt object. Age of injury was 3 to 4 days. It
may heal within 2 to 3 days if no complication arose.
2) Contusion left leg dorsal aspect over calf muscles 3 to 4 in jhes in
length. Caused by hard and blunt object. Age of the injury 3 to 4 days. Heal
within 2 to 3 days if no complication arose. No other injuries were
detected on clinical examination."
PW 11 issued medical certificate Exh.77. Thus, the medical evidence
corroborates testimony of the injured witnesses as well as the eye witness PW 3-
Sukhdeo. The seizure of sticks indicates that the accused persons had used those
sticks while assaulting the injured persons. The prosecution has proved that the
accused intentionally assaulted PW1-Sudhakar and PW2-Dhansingh, by means of
sticks.
18. Thus, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused. No
perversity or illegality is noticed in the impugned judgment and order and as such no
no interference is called for. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
CRI.APPEAL.769.03
i) Criminal Appeal No.769/2003 is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and order judgment and order dated 03.12.2003 in Sessions Trial
No.113/2000 delivered by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, is
hereby maintained.
iii) The appellant/accused to surrender within a period of four weeks, for
undergoing the remaining sentence. Needless to mention, appellant-accused No.4-
Uttam is dead.
JUDGE
sahare
