Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Nitin Waman Koli on 31 August, 2021
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/3 13-ALS-6-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2021
(For Leave to file Appeal)
The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
versus
Nitin Waman Koli .... Respondent
(Orig. Accused No.1)
.......
• Ms.Veera Shinde, APP for the State.
• Mr.Prakash Sanap, PSI, Trombay Police Station, present in
Court.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2021
P.C. :
1. Heard learned APP.
2. With the assistance of learned APP, I have perused the
impugned judgment and depositions of witnesses. The
MANUSHREE
V
NESARIKAR prosecution case is that on 21/03/2013, the accused was
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE V
NESARIKAR
Date: 2021.08.31
16:20:00 +0530
playing in a musical programme. Somebody threw dirt on him.
He got angry and beat P.W.2 Amin Abdul Ajij. He suffered
Nesarikar
2/3 13-ALS-6-21.odt
injuries to his shoulder. He complained his mother, who came to
the spot and saw the accused and went to the police station and
lodged complaint. The investigation was carried out and the
matter proceeded to trial before the leaned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 60th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. The Respondent accused
faced charge u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code. During the
course of trial, the prosecution examined victim Amin Abdul Ajij
as P.W.2, his mother Madina Abdul Ajij as P.W.1, I.O. Rajendra
Jadhav as P.W.3 and Dr.Sudhir Chaudhary, Medical Officer
attached to Sion Hospital, who was examined as P.W.4.
3. P.W.1 was not an eyewitness. She was not knowing the
accused. She relied on the version given by P.W.2.
4. The victim P.W.2 Amin Abdul Ajij has deposed before
the Court in the year 2018. The incident had taken place in the
year 2013. P.W.2 was not knowing the accused. He has admited
that there were about 10-15 persons playing in that musical
programme. The accused was wearing the same uniform as
3/3 13-ALS-6-21.odt
others. No test identification parade was held. Therefore identity
of the offender, if any, is not properly established.
5. The Medical Officer has stated that the injury was
simple in nature. Therefore in any case the offence could not fall
within the setion of 325 of IPC. Even otherwise, there is no
sufficient evidence against the present Applicant. Admittedly it
was a crowded locality. There were many people attending the
function. No other independent witness is examined.
6. Learned trial Judge has considered all these aspects in
acquitting the accused. The view taken by the learned trial
Judge is a possible view. There is no perversity in the judgment
and order. Therefore I do not find it a fit case, which needs
interference. The application for leave to file the appeal, is
rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
