Chaya Balu Gore vs Sandipan Dagadu Gore And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9989 Bom

                          :1:                     7.apeal-1321-19.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1321 OF 2019

Chaya Balu Gore                                 .... Appellant
           Versus
Sandipan Dagadu Gore
and others                                      .... Respondents
                            -----
Mr.    Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, Advocate a/w. Atharva R.
Bhingardive for the Appellant.
Mr. Siddharth S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
& 2.
Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.3-State.
                            -----

                                CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C. :

1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and

order dated 7.8.2019 passed by the Extra Joint Additional

Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Criminal Appeal No.15/2015

thereby allowing the appeal against the judgment and order

dated 12.3.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First

Class at Pandharpur who had convicted the respondent

Nos.1 & 2 for commission of offences punishable under

Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

                                                                1 of 5

Deshmane(PS)
                          :2:                       7.apeal-1321-19.odt

2. Heard Shri Vaibhav Gaikwad, learned counsel for

the appellant, Shri Siddharth Deshpande, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for

the State.

3. The trial Court convicted these respondents for

those offences; and had sentenced them to suffer RI for one

year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section

324 read with 34 of IPC. They were sentenced to suffer RI

for six months for offence under Section 323 read with 34

of IPC. They were sentenced to suffer RI for one month for

offence under Section 504 read with 34 of IPC. They were

also convicted for offence under Section 506 read with 34 of

IPC. They were sentenced to suffer RI for one month. All

sentences and convictions were set aside by the Appellate

Court vide judgment and order dated 7.8.2019.

4. The prosecution case is in respect of the incident

dated 25.12.2013. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as well as the first

informant were relatives. There was a dispute about using

way to their land. On that day, both the respondents

2 of 5 :3: 7.apeal-1321-19.odt

stopped her when she was returning back from a temple at

around 4.00 p.m.. The respondent No.1 held her and beat

her by Chappal. The respondent No.2 assaulted her with a

stone on her head. She suffered injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

PW-1 the first informant's evidence is supported by two eye

witnesses, PW-2 Bapu Pandhare and PW-3 Uttam Lavate.

There was consistency which shows that the incident had

taken place and, therefore, the judgment and order of the

Appellate Court is not correct. The respondent Nos.1 and 2

deserve to be convicted and sentenced.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 supported the reasoning of the

appellate Court.

7. Learned APP supported the appellant's case.

However, no separate appeal is preferred on behalf of the

State.

8. I have considered these submissions and I have

perused both the judgments and orders. As far as the

3 of 5 :4: 7.apeal-1321-19.odt

Appellate Court's reasoning is concerned, it was observed

that PW-1, the first informant, has stated that the people

gathered at the spot after the appellant had run away. As an

afterthought, she deposed that PWs-2 & 3 came at the spot

and helped her. Both these witnesses were friends of her

husband that is brought out in her cross-examination,

though PW-2 & 3 had denied this. Thus, it is established that

they were not completely truthful and completely reliable

witnesses. The incident had taken place on the road. The

prosecution should have examined other independent

witnesses. The evidence of PW-2 & 3 does not inspire

confidence and they have deliberately not admitted that they

were friends of husband of PW-1. Apart from that, the

Appellate Court has also commented on the quality of

evidence of PW-4 Dr. Khatavkar though he claims that he

had put stitches on the head of PW-1, his contemporaneous

medical certificate does not mention so.

9. Considering all these aspects, the Appellate Court

has given benefit of doubt to the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

                                                                 4 of 5
                                                         :5:                    7.apeal-1321-19.odt

I do not think that this judgment and order can be termed as

perverse. The view taken by the Appellate Court is a

possible view and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere

with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The

Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Deshmane (PS)

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date:

2022.10.03 17:25:01 +0530

5 of 5