Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Bhaskar Tayade vs State Of Mah And Anr on 17 April, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
53-revn-371-2005 judg.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2005
Chandrakant s/o Bhaskar Tayade,
Age 38 years, Occu : Advocate,
R/o. Yeshwant Colony, Near Nahata
College, Jamner Road, Bhusawal,
Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. ...Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
(copy to be served through
A.P.P. High Court of Judicature
of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. Jagannath s/o Namdeo Nikam
Age 43 years, Occu : Service,
R/o II Type, Quarters No.24/E,
Varangaon Ordance Factory,
Varangaon, Tq. Bhusawal,
District Jalgaon. ...Respondents
...
Mr. N.S. Shah h/f Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.B. Narwade, APP for the respondent-State.
Ms. Akshara Madake h/f Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
DATED : APRIL 17, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the respective counsels.
2. The applicant/complainants being dissatisfied with the
order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bhusawal in RCC No.47 of 1995 dated 08.08.2005 has
preferred this revision.
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 15:46:22 :::
53-revn-371-2005 judg.odt
(2)
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
learned Magistrate erred in not believing the injured whose testimony
was supported with the medical evidence. He has also argued that
the learned Magistrate has erroneously observed that it was
impossible for the injured to go to his home first and then to the
hospital. That the learned Magistrate erroneously believed the
defence of the accused. There were many witnesses who have
corroborated the allegations levelled against the accused. An
independent eye witness PW-6 Prahlad More was also disbelieved for
extraneous reasons that he had the another way to go to his village
Kotha, but he deliberately choose the road passing through the spot of
incident. The prosecution had proved the case beyond the reasonable
doubt but for want of proper appreciation of the evidence, the
accused has been acquitted.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/respondent
would argue that no incident as such happened. However, one of the
colleague of the accused had lodged the report against the
complainant under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code and the accused
was the witness to that incident. The complainant is an advocate;
therefore, he was trying to have no evidence in the case lodged
against him under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he
implicated the accused falsely in the crime. It was not possible for the
accused to reach immediately before the injured reached, in front of
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 15:46:22 :::
53-revn-371-2005 judg.odt
(3)
the bungalow where the alleged incident happened. One witness who
was the clerk of the injured was allegedly with him had filed an
affidavit that he has been falsely cited as an eye witness. Reading the
evidence as a whole, the learned Magistrate has properly and
correctly appreciated the evidence and disbelieved the injured. There
are no errors on the face of record. Therefore, the revision deserves
to be dismissed.
5. The Court has very little scope to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. Unless
there are apparent mistake on the face of record, the revisional Court
should be slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal.
6. The Court has gone through the impugned judgment. The
most reliable and believable witness, who was the clerk of the injured
had sworn in an affidavit before the Court that he has been falsely
cited as an eye witness. Withholding such a material witness is
sufficient to draw the adverse inference against prosecution. That
apart, considering the two spots it seems not possible to the accused
to reach on the spot of the incident before the complainant reached
there. It appears that the learned Magistrate has correctly raised the
suspicion over PW-6, who was allegedly the eye witness to the
incident. Reading the evidence as a whole, it appears that the learned
Magistrate has given the correct and proper reasons to disbelieve PW-
6 and the injured. Merely injury to the complainant though
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 15:46:22 :::
53-revn-371-2005 judg.odt
(4)
corroborated with medical evidence is not sufficient to hold the
accused guilty. The prosecution has to prove that the accused was the
author of the said injury.
7. After having gone through the impugned judgment and
order, the Court believe that the learned Magistrate has correctly
appreciated the evidence and there were no errors and illegalities in
the impugned judgment and order. In result, the revision application
fails. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The revision application stands dismissed.
(ii) Record and proceedings be returned to the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal.
(iii) Rule is discharged.
(S.G. MEHARE, J.)
Mujaheed//
