Pratap Jaganath Mohite vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 993 Bom

osk                                                            30-Cri Revn-11-2021.odt



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2021

Pratap Jaganath Mohite                           ... Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                  ... Respondents


Mr.Prosper D'souza through Legal Aid for Applicant.
Mr.Amit Palkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Mahendra Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.2 to 6.

                                    CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.

DATE : 15th January 2021.

P.C. :

By the present Revision under Section 397 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, the applicant/original complainant has impugned Judgment

and Order dated 8th December 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Kadegaon in Regular Criminal Case No. 35 of 2008, acquitting the

respondent Nos.2 to 6 from the offences punishable under Section 143, 147,

148, 324, 379, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and

Judgment and Order dated 8th September 2017 passed by the learned District

Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of

2011 dated 8th September 2017, dismissing the appeal and confirming the

Judgment and Order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kadegaon dated 8 th

December 2010.

osk 30-Cri Revn-11-2021.odt

2. Heard Mr.D'souza, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Palkar,

learned A.P.P. for the respondent No.1-State and Mr.Deshmukh, learned

counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 6. Perused record annexed to the Revision

Application.

3. It was the case of the prosecution that, on 14 th March 1997 at

about 8.30 am, the respondent Nos.2 to 6 assaulted applicant with fists, kick

blows and stones. The said incident was witnessed by PW-2 to 5, who were

independent witnesses. The said incident was also witnessed by PW-7 i.e. the

father of the applicant. A Crime bearing C.R. No.18 of 1997 against the

respondents for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 324,

394, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with

Kadegaon Police Station, District Sangli. On completion of investigation,

Chargesheet came to be filed before the Trial Court by the Investigating

Officer.

4. Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit-54 against the

respondent Nos.2 to 6. The contents of the charge were read-over and

explained to them in vernacular, to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 was of total

denial and implication in a false crime. The prosecution examined in all 8

witnesses in support of its case to substantiate charges against the respondent

Nos.2 to 6. The Trial Court after recording evidence and hearing the learned

osk 30-Cri Revn-11-2021.odt

Advocates for the respective parties was pleased to acquit respondent Nos.2 to

6 from the charges framed against them by its impugned Judgment and Order

dated 8th December 2010.

5. In an appeal preferred by the applicant bearing Criminal Appeal

No. 79 of 2011, the Appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence

available on record was pleased to dismiss the same by its impugned

Judgment and Order dated 8th September 2017.

In the premise, the applicant has approached this Court under

Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code by way of Criminal Revision

Application.

6. Mr.D'souza, learned counsel appearing for the applicant

submitted that, the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the

testimony of applicant (PW-6) coupled with the admissions given by Medical

Officer (PW-8) in its proper perspective. He submitted that, the father of

applicant, i.e. PW-7, has corroborated the version of the applicant of assault

by the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the said vital aspect has been lost sight of by

both the Court's below. He submitted that, this Court therefore may take into

consideration the said facts which may entail reversal of acquittal of the

respondent Nos.2 to 6. He therefore prayed that the present Revision

Application may be allowed.

osk 30-Cri Revn-11-2021.odt

7. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.2 to 6 vehemently opposed the present Revision and submitted that, both

the Court's below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and have

not committed any error or irregularity in acquitting the respondent Nos.2 to

6. He therefore prayed that, the present Revision may accordingly be

dismissed.

8. At the outset, it is to be noted here that, the PW Nos.2 to 5 who

are independent witnesses have resiled from their original statements

recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and did not

support prosecution case. They were therefore declared hostile by the learned

public prosecutor appearing therein. The said witnesses have been cross

examined at length by the concerned public prosecutor. However, nothing

fruitful is brought on record which would benefit the applicant. PW-7 i.e.

father of the applicant is an interested witness, who supported case of the

applicant.

Dr.Neminath Upadhye (PW-8), Medical Officer in his cross-

examination has admitted that, most of the injuries suffered by the applicant

are possible if a person fails down on surface. It is important to note here that

all the 6 injuries which PW-8 noticed at the time of clinical examination of the

applicant, were minor in nature and are possible by a fall. Assuming for the

sake of argument, even if one of the respondents in the melle has pushed the

osk 30-Cri Revn-11-2021.odt

applicant, causing him to fall on surface, then also taking into consideration

the nature of injuries suffered by the applicant, the provisions of Section 324

of the Indian Penal Code may not be attracted. Record further indicates that,

after the alleged incident of assault, the applicant went to Primary Health

Centre at Kadegaon for treatment. After taking treatment, he went to Vita for

his work and after returning therefrom in the evening he lodged the present

crime. PW-5 has admitted that, Kadegaon Police Station is situated in front of

Primary Health Centre, Kadegaon, where the applicant took medical

treatment immediately after the alleged assault. The applicant has no offered

any explanation for not lodging complaint with the police immediately at the

first instance. This conduct of the applicant creates doubt about his bonafide

in the mind of the Court.

9. After perusing Judgments of both the Court's below minutely, this

Court is of the considered view that, the Trial Court at the first instance and

the Appellate Court while re-appreciating the evidence on record has not

committed any error or irregularity in appreciating it. There is no error either

in law or on facts in both the Judgments passed by the Court's below.

10. The Revision Application being dehors of merits is accordingly

dismissed.

[A.S. GADKARI, J.] Digitally signed by Omkar S.

Omkar S.     Kumbhakarn
Kumbhakarn   Date: 2021.01.18
             15:52:14 +0530                                                                            5/5