Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Ganpati @ Rambhaji Bhanudas ... on 18 January, 2018
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station
Officer, Police Station
Talwada, Tq. : Georai, .... APPELLANT/
Dist. : Beed. [ORI.COMPLAINANT]
V E R S U S
1. Ganpati @ Rambhaji s/o
Bhanudas Surnar
Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
2. Asaram s/o Ramkisan Kale
Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
3. Vitthal Bhanudas Surnar
[Died, abated as per Order
below Exh. 57].
4. Nanabhau Bapusaheb Pandhare
Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
5. Kadaji Rambhaji Surnar
Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:41:23 :::
2 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
6. Asaram Bhanudas Parekar
Age : 28 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
7. Shivaji Sitaram Pandhare
Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
8. Ankush Uttam Kale
Age : 20 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
9. Vijay Rambhaji Surnar
Age : 19 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
10. Pandurang Kundlik Pandhare
Age : 23 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.,
11. Navnath Ramkisan Kale
Age : 21 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
12. Tulshiram Baburao Pandhare
Age : 23 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
13. Waman Rambhau Sarak
Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
14. Baban Arjun Bandgar
Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
15. Vilas Waman Sarak
Age : 21 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
16. Kalyan Sakharam Bandgar
Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:41:23 :::
3 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
17. Baburao Janba Surnar
Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
18. Mahadeo Ashruba Deshmukh
Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
19. Babu Sitaram Pandhare
Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
20. Bhima Maruti Ghargude
Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
21. Chhagan Bhima Ghargude
Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
22. Mahadeo Bhanudas Parekar
Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
23. Bandu Ramkisan Kale
Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
24. Narayan Baburao Surnar
Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.
All R/o : Deshmukhwadi, .... RESPONDENTS/
Tq. : Georai, Dist. Beed. [ORI.ACCUSED]
......
Shri. S.D.Ghayal, A.P.P. for Appellant - State.
Shri. V.S.Bedre, Advocate for R - 1,2,4 to 24.
......
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:41:23 :::
4 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 372 OF 2003
Asaram s/o Ramkishan Kale
Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. : Agri.,
R/o : Deshmukhwadi, Post :
Rampuri, Tq. : Georai, .... APPLICANT/
Dist. Beed. [ORI.COMPLAINANT]
V E R S U S
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station
Officer, Police Station
Talwada, Tq. : Georai,
Dist. : Beed.
2. Dnyanoba Kisan Sarak
Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
3. Rambhau Appa Yamgar
Age : 67 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
4. Arjun Appa Yamgar
Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
5. Pintu @ Kisan Dnyanoba Sarak
Age : 24 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
6. Bhagwan Maroti Yamgar
Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:41:23 :::
5 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
7. Pandurang Arjun Yamgar
Age : 26 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
8. Laxman Dnyanoba Pandhare
Age : 33 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
9. Bhagwat Vithal @
Gabbulal Satpute
Age : 24 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
10. Prabhu Vithal Satpute
Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
11. Vitthal @ Gabbulal
Tatyabhau Satpute
Age : 54 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
12. Arjun Rambhau Pingale
Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
13. Jaywant Dnyanoba Pandhare
Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
14. Vitthal Dnyanoba Pandhare
Age : 48 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
15. Maruti Rambhau Yamgar
Age : 54 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
16. Shrirang Tukaram Pandhare
Age : 64 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:41:23 :::
6 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
17. Bhimrao Rambhau Yamgar
Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
18. Tulsabai Vitthal Pandhare
Age : 34 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
19. Dropadibai Laxman Pandhare
Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
20. Laxmabai Jaiwanta Pandhare
Age : 28 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
21. Sanjevani Arjun Pingale
Age : 27 Yrs., Occ. Agri.
All R/o : Deshmukhwadi, .... RESPONDENTS/
Tq. : Georai, Dist. Beed. [ORI.ACCUSED]
......
Shri. V.S.Bedre, Advocate for Applicant.
Shri. S.D.Ghayal, A.P.P. for R - 1 - State.
Shri. A.S.Barlota h/f Shri. S.K.Barlota,
Advocate for R - 2 to 21.
......
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : 18 th JANUARY, 2018
......
7 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER - P.R.BORA, J.]
1. The Judgment and Order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Beed on 25/09/2002 in Sessions Case No.
81/2000 is challenged by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of
2003, whereas the Order passed in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2000
arising out of the same incident is questioned in Criminal Revision
Application No. 372 of 2003. The original complainant has
preferred the Criminal Revision Application.
2. The incident happened on 22/09/1998 at village
Deshmukhwadi, had given rise for filing two complaints, one by
Laxman Dnyanoba Pandhare and other by Asaram Ramkishan
Kale. In the complaint filed by Laxman Dnyanoba Pandhare, he
had alleged that on 22/09/1998 at about 1.00 p.m., Kashibai
Narayan Surnar had been to the back-yard of their house and had
attempted to pluck the gourds [Dev-dangar in the words of
complainant]. Kashibai was prevented from plucking the gourds
by the sister-in-law of complainant Laxman viz. Tulsabai Vithal
Pandhare. At that time, Kashibai left the said place without
plucking any gourd. However, at about 3.00 p.m. when the
complainant Laxman, his brothers, his uncle and cousin had been
to their house for taking afternoon meals, Narayan Baburao
Surnar, etc. entered in their house with sticks and stones in their
8 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
hands and started abusing and beating them. As alleged in the
complaint, Narayan Surnar had made an assault on Laxman with
axe and injured him. Some other accused were also alleged to
have made assaults with the axes and sticks in their hands on
other members in the house. The stones were also alleged to have
been pelted on the said persons. Complainant Laxman Pandhare
had alleged that an attempt was made by the accused to cause his
death and to cause serious injuries to his other family members.
Laxman lodged the report of the said incident at police station
Talwada, Taluka Georai, District Beed, whereupon the crime was
registered against Ganpati Surnar etc. 24 vide Crime No.
0053/1998 for the offences punishable u/s 307,326,323,338,452,
147,148,149 and 504 of I.P.C. and the investigation was set in
motion.
3. As against the complaint filed by Laxman Pandhare,
Asaram Ramkisan Kale also filed complaint in police station
Talwada, Taluka Georai, District Beed against Dnyanoba Kisan
Sarak, etc. 20 alleging that on 22/09/1998, Kashibai Surnar and
Pushpabai Asaram Parekar, when had been to the well for fetching
water, were abused by Tulsabai Pandhare, Dropadabai, Laxmibai
and Sanjivani. It was also alleged that on instigation of one
Shrirang Tukaram Pandhare, said women made assaults on
Kashibai and Pushpabai. It was also the complaint of Asaram that
9 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
when he and Narayan Surnar, etc. tried to prevent Tulsabai, etc.
from making assaults on Kashibai and Pushpabai, other accused
persons entered on the said spot and scuffled with them. Asaram
had also alleged that the assailants were holding axe, sticks and
stones in their hands. Asaram also made a grievance that because
of the assaults made by Dnyanoba Kisan Sarak, etc. the injuries
were caused to the persons who were on his side. Asaram,
therefore, lodged report of the said incident, whereupon the crime
was registered against Dnyanoba Kisan Sarak, etc. 20 for the
offence punishable u/s 326,504,147,148,149 of I.P.C. and the
investigation was set in motion.
4. The material on record reveal that after completing
the investigation in both the aforesaid crimes, the charge sheets
were filed in both the cases against the persons who were named
assailants in the respective complaints. Since some of the offences
alleged against respective assailants in the respective complaints
were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, both the cases
were committed to the Sessions Court and the case initiated on
complaint of Laxman Pandhare was registered as Sessions Case
No. 81 of 2000, whereas the case based on complaint of Asaram
Kale was registered as Sessions Case No. 80 of 2000. The record
further reveals that both the cases were tried by First Ad-hoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Beed and separate Judgments were
10 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
delivered in both the aforesaid Sessions cases on 25/09/2002.
The learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused in both the
Sessions cases of all the charges levelled against them.
5. As noted herein above, the State has filed Appeal
against the Judgment and Order delivered in Sessions Case No. 81
of 2000 whereas Criminal Revision Application is filed by the
original complainant against the Judgment delivered in Sessions
Case No. 80 of 2000. The State has not preferred any Appeal
against the Judgment and Order passed in Sessions Case No.
80/2000.
6. Shri. S.D.Ghayal, the learned A.P.P. assail the
Judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 81/2000, whereas Shri.
V.S.Bedre, the learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant
criticized the Judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 80/2000.
Shri. V.S.Bedre resisted the submission made on behalf of learned
A.P.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2003, whereas Shri.
S.K.Barlota, the learned counsel opposed the submissions made by
the revision applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 372 of
2003.
7. Since the aforesaid matters are arising out of one
incident, we have heard the arguments in both the matters
11 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
simultaneously and deem it appropriate to decide both the matters
by common reasons.
8. After having heard the learned A.P.P. and the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties in both the aforesaid
matters and on perusal of the Judgment delivered in Sessions Case
Nos. 80/2000 and 81/2000 by the learned First Ad-hoc Additional
Sessions Judge, Beed; apparently it does not appear to us that any
interference may be required in the impugned Judgments.
9. It is not in dispute that some dispute had arisen
between two groups, one led by Laxman Pandhare and another led
by Asaram Kale on 22/09/1998 at village Deshmukhwadi in the
afternoon. Though both the groups have come out with different
stories for a dispute between them, the fact remains that both the
groups had scuffled with each other and as alleged by them some
of the members from both the groups were injured in the said fight
because of the assaults received to them at the hands of members
of rival group. According to the complaint lodged by Laxman
Pandhare, the cause for the dispute was that one Kashibai Surnar
had attempted to pluck the gourds, grown in the house of his
backyard, whereas according to the complaint lodged by Asaram
Kale, the dispute had arisen on account of fetching water from the
well.
12 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
10. In Sessions Case No. 81/2000, the prosecution has
examined as many as 11 witnesses and has also relied upon
certain documents. In Sessions Case No. 80/2000, as many as 14
witnesses were examined and the documentary evidence of-course
was also relied upon. After having perused evidence on record in
both the aforesaid Sessions cases, it is noticed by us that in none of
the Sessions case any such unimpeachable evidence has come on
record so as to hold any of the accused guilty in the aforesaid
Sessions cases for the offences charged against them. The medical
certificates on record clearly demonstrate that none of the injured
has received any severe injury. The injuries noticed to have been
caused were all simple in nature. More importantly the
prosecution has failed in both the aforesaid Sessions cases to bring
on record any cogent and sufficient evidence to prove as to which
accused had caused the injury to the injured in the rival group.
Though some witnesses have certainly deposed about the assaults
made on them, their testimony has not been corroborated by any
other witness.
11. It is further revealed that though the prosecution
witnesses have alleged in their evidence before the Court that they
were assaulted by axe, the medical evidence has completely
negated their evidence. Medical evidence does not demonstrate
that there was any possibility of making assaults by any of the
13 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
assailant with axe. As is revealing from the medical certificates,
the injuries were noticed to have been caused with some blunt
object. It is further revealed that in so far as the spot of
occurrence is concerned, a very inconsistent evidence has come on
record.
12. We reiterate and specifically state that though in
each of the aforesaid Sessions case as many as 10 to 14 witnesses
respectively are examined, none of the witness has corroborated
the version of another witness on material particulars. The
inconsistency is apparently noticed between the ocular account
given by the witnesses of the alleged incident and the medical
evidence on record. After having considered the evidence brought
on record in both the aforesaid Sessions cases, we have no
hesitation in holding that no conviction could have been based of
any of the accused in the respective Sessions cases on the basis of
such evidence. As has been observed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, though admittedly there was a free fight between
two groups, none of them has succeeded in proving the allegations
against each other. In absence of any cogent and sufficient
evidence brought on record against any of the accused in aforesaid
Sessions cases, everyone was entitled to be given benefit of doubt
and in our opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
rightly extended the said benefit and has resultantly acquitted all
14 Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
the accused in aforesaid Sessions cases.
13. After having considered the entire material on
record, it does not appear to us that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has committed any inherent error so as to cause
interference in the finding of acquittal recorded by it in both the
aforesaid Sessions cases. We have to note that even the learned
A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing in the Revision
Application were finding it very difficult to object the conclusions
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
14. In the foregoing circumstances and for the reasons
recorded above, Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2003 as well as
Criminal Revision Application No. 372 of 2003 deserve to be
dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
[P.R.BORA] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE JUDGE
KNP/Cr. Appeal 66.2003 with Cr.R.A. 372.2003 - [J]
