The State Of Maharashtra vs Jaywant @ Sarjerao Anna Tadakhe ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4448 Bom

                                                                         11-cri-apeal-22-04.doc


Dinesh
         Digitally signed
         by Dinesh S.             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         Sherla
S.       Date:
         2021.03.11                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Sherla
                                             APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2004
         15:24:04
         +0500




                            The State of Maharashtra                   ... Appellant

                                    V/s.

                            1.      Jaywant @ Sarjerao Anna            (Abated)
                                    Tadakhe

                            2.       Ananda Baburao Tadakhe            ... Respondents

                                                    ----------------
                            Ms M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Appellant - State.
                            Mr. Govind Ghogare for the Respondents.
                            Respondent No.2 in person present.
                                                    ----------------

                                            CORAM   :   SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
                                                        N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
                                            DATE    :   MARCH 10, 2021.


                            JUDGMENT (PER N.R. BORKAR, J.)

1] This appeal at the instance of State has been fled

against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2003 passed by

learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case

No. 70 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the

respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were accused before the trial

court, have been acquitted for the ofence punishable under

sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

"IPC").

                            Dinesh Sherla                                                         1/5
                                                        11-cri-apeal-22-04.doc


2]      During pendency of the present appeal, respondent No.1

(original accused No.1) has died on 28.11.2017. Accordingly,

we have on 2.2.2021 ordered that appeal as regards

respondent No.1 (original accused No.1) stands abated.

3] It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of

incident, i.e. 2.7.2000, the complainant Atmaram Bali

Kambale (PW 1) was residing with his family at Village

Shirsavadi, Taluka Khatav, Dist. Satara. The agricultural land

owned by the complainant was in possession of his elder

brother Tukaram as a lessee. The complainant demanded

Rs.3000/- from his brother Tukaram as loan for the marriage

expenses of his daughter. His brother Tukaram refused to give

loan of Rs.3000/- to him. He therefore, took loan of Rs.5000/-

from his younger brother Sopan. As his elder brother Tukaram

refused to give him loan, the complainant took the possession

of the agricultural land from him and handed over it's

possession to his younger brother Sopan.

4] It is alleged that accused No.1, who is brother-in-law of

Tukaram (brother of Tukaram's wife), was annoyed with the

Dinesh Sherla 2/5 11-cri-apeal-22-04.doc

said act of the complainant as he felt that the complainant by

his said act lowered down the image of Tukaram in the eyes of

villagers. It is alleged that accused No.1 along with accused

No.2, who is nephew of accused No.1, therefore, on the date

of incident, i.e., 2.7.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., assaulted the

complainant by knife on his stomach and attempted to kill

him.

5] The complainant lodged the report in relation to the

incident with Vaduj Police Station, Dist. Satara. On the basis of

said report, Vaduj Police Station registered the crime against

both the accused for the ofence punishable under sections

307 read with 34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation, a

charge-sheet was fled against them. Both the accused were

charged and tried for the said ofence. As stated earlier, the

trial court acquitted both the accused for the said ofence by

the impugned judgment and order.

6] We have heard learned APP for the State and learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 (accused No.2).

Dinesh Sherla                                                           3/5
                                                      11-cri-apeal-22-04.doc


7]      Admittedly,      the   incident   took   place   on     2.7.2000,

however, the frst information report is lodged on 11.7.2000.

8] It appears that immediately on the next day of the

incident, i.e., on 3.7.2000 the statement of the complainant

was recorded by the police. In the said statement, the

complainant has stated that he accidentally fell on the sickle

and sustained injury in question. Similar statement was made

at the time of giving history of incident to the Doctor.

9] The complainant has stated in his evidence that after

the incident, he was threatened by accused No.1 of dire

consequences in case he lodges the report with the police and

therefore, he had stated in his earlier statement that he had

sustained injury due to accidental fall on the sickle. In the

cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that he is in

service of Grampanchayat. He knows Advocate Ingle.

Advocate Ingale is from his village. Advocate Ingale was the

member of Panchayat Samiti, Khatav Taluka. He has further

admitted that due to active help of Advocate Ingale, he and

his wife were appointed as Peon and Anganwadi Teacher

respectively. Considering these facts, the alleged explanation

Dinesh Sherla 4/5 11-cri-apeal-22-04.doc

of the complainant for not lodging the report practically for

nine days, does not appear to be convincing.

10] Apart from above mentioned circumstances, no overt

act is attributed to accused No.2. As against accused No.2, it

is only stated that accused No.1 took out the knife from the

bag, which accused No.2 was carrying and assaulted the

complainant. However, this fact also appears to be an

omission.

11] Considering these facts and circumstances, no

interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order

of acquittal. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2004 stands dismissed.

      (N.R. BORKAR, J.)          (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)




Dinesh Sherla                                                              5/5