Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ashoksing Amarsing Rajput And Ors on 29 November, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
220-apeal-359-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.359 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant
Vs.
Ashoksingh Amarsingh Rajput & Ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Appellant-State.
Ms.Mrinal Shelar i/b Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 29 NOVEMBER 2021
P.C.
. By this Appeal the State is challenging the acquittal of
the respondents, from an offence punishable under Section 324,
323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-
The complainant Keshavsing Rajput (PW-1) is having a
grocery shop which is part of his house premises where he is staying
along with his wife and children. The Respondent Ashoksing
Rajput and Ranjitsing Rajput (Accused Nos.1 and 2) are the cousins
of the complainant while the Respondent No.3 (Accused No.3) is
the wife of the Accused No.1. It may be mentioned that the
Accused No.2 Ranjitsing Rajput has since expired and the Appeal
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 6
220-apeal-359-2004
has abated against him. It is also not in dispute that the parties were
residing adjacent to each other and there was civil litigation between
them in respect of their house property and their relations were not
cordial.
3. Some time prior to the complaint the complainant
applied for a electric connection which was objected to by the
respondents-accused. However, after obtaining a writing from the
accused persons an electric connection was released by the State
Electricity Board to the complainant. This was yet another issue
between the parties which was part of their all over dispute.
4. On 24 November 2000 at about 10.00 a.m. it is alleged
that the complainant PW-1 was in his shop. A person from the State
Electricity Board asked the complainant as to where Respondent
No.2 is residing. The complainant showed the residence of
Respondent No.1 and asked his brother to seize this opportunity by
obtaining something in writing from the accused before an electric
connection is released in favour of the respondent-accused
Respondent No.1 is alleged to have overheard this conversation
which was the point of the trigger for the incident. The Respondent
No.1 is alleged to have gone to the shop of the complainant and
assaulted him with a 1 kg weight lying in the shop.
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 6
220-apeal-359-2004
5. It is also said that there was a scuffle between the
complainant and the respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 and 3
had subsequently gone to the shop and according to the prosecution
they were part of the common intention of the respondent No.1 to
assault the complainant.
6. PW-1 lodged the complaint on the following day i.e. on
25 November 2000 with Miraj Police Station. The Investigating
Officer referred the complainant for medical examination. The
record discloses that PW-1 was examined by Dr.Krushna Lokhande
(PW-6) on 24 November 2000 and had found a contused lacerated
injury over the left temporo-patital region measuring 3 cmx ½ cmx
scalp deep with irregular margins and another contused lacerated
injury over oceipital region 1 cmx ½ cmx scalp deep with irregular
margins. The record discloses that the Medical Officer has not been
cross-examined on behalf of the respondent-Accused.
7. The Investigating Officer after the conclusion of the
investigation filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Miraj which was registered as Criminal Case No.276 of 2000.
The learned Magistrate framed charge against the respondent for the
offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal code. The respondents pleaded not guilty
N.S. Kamble page 3 of 6
220-apeal-359-2004
and claimed to be tried. The defense of the respondents is of total
denial and false implication.
8. At the trial the prosecution examined in all six witnesses
namely the Complainant Keshavsingh Shankarsingh Rajput (PW-1),
his brother Mr.Anilsingh Shankar Singh Rajput (PW-2), a panch
Mr.Vijay Harat Sonavane (PW-3), Sharmila Keshvsing Rajput
(PW-4) who is wife of the complainant, the Investigating Officer
Shripati Naiku Nikam (PW-5) and the Medical Officer Dr.Kishan
Jaising Lokhande (PW-6) and produced the record of the
investigation.
9. The Respondent did not lead any evidence in defense.
10. The learned Magistrate by the impugned judgment and
order dated 12 November 2003 has acquitted the respondent.
Hence this Appeal.
11. I have heard Mr.Agarkar, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and Ms.Mrinal Shelar for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have gone
through the record.
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 6
220-apeal-359-2004
12. The learned Magistrate has found that there was a
dispute between the parties and their relations were not cordial. The
learned Magistrate also noticed that PW-2 who is brother of the
complainant has not supported him and the evidence of PW-4 who
is wife of the complainant is discrepant. The learned Magistrate also
noticed that PW-1 did not claim that his wife had come on the spot.
These are some of the reasons apart from the delay in lodging of the
complaint by about 28 hours, prompting the Magistrate to record a
finding of acquittal.
13. After having carefully gone through the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and the reasons articulated by the learned
Magistrate, I find that, the view taken by the learned Magistrate
appears to be possible or a plausible view. It is true as argued on
behalf of the Appellant that merely because there was a dispute
between the complainant and accused is not sufficient to discard
their evidence. This is because as it is well settled enmity is a
double edged weapon. However, in such a case the evidence has to
be closely scrutinized as the enmity at the same time can also afford
ground for false implication. The learned Magistrate in this regard
has also noticed that the complaint was filed on the subsequent day
and the complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital in the afternoon
of the day of incident. However, before that the complainant is
shown to be examined by PW-6 as the compliance had gone to the
N.S. Kamble page 5 of 6
220-apeal-359-2004
hospital, with a police 'yadi'. In my considered view, the learned
Magistrate is right in observing that there is no reason that the real
brother of the complainant would not support the complainant in
the matter of the incident as alleged by the complainant.
14. It is now well settled that in an appeal of the present
nature this Court can justifiably interfere only when the view taken
by the Trial Court is found to be perverse or is against the weight of
the evidence on record or it is an impossible view. (See the decision
of the Supreme Court in Chandrappa and Ors. V/s. State of
Karnataka1.) Applying the principles as to the scope and ambit of
the Appeal against acquittal, in my considered view, no case for
interference is made out. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Digitally signed by
C.V. BHADANG, J.
NILAM NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
Date: 2021.11.30
KAMBLE 13:29:23 +0530
1 (2007) 4 SCC 415
N.S. Kamble page 6 of 6
