Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashra vs Ramdas S/O. Uttamrao Jadhav And ... on 3 October, 2023
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
1 ALS 96 OF 2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.96 OF 2020
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Jalna,
Dist.Jalna. ..Applicant
(Ori. Prosecution)
Versus
1. Ramdas s/o Uttamrao Jadhav
Age: 33 years, R/o. Kajala,
Taluka : Badnapur, Dist.Jalna.
2. Kailas s/o Keshavrao Jadhav
Age: 22 years, R/o. Antarwala,
Taluka and Dist.Jalna. ..Respondents
(Ori. Accused)
...
APP for Applicant : Mr.A.M.Phule
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20 SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 3 OCTOBER, 2023
ORDER (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :
1. This application for leave to file appeal is directed against judgment and
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Jalna in Sessions
Case No.77 of 2017 dated 09-01-2020 thereby acquitting the respondents
from charge under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC).
2 ALS 96 OF 2020.odt
2. Learned APP for the applicant took us through the FIR lodged by PW1
Ankush Tulshiram Jadhav and would submit that through this witness actual
occurrence was brought on record. That informant had received information
about assault on deceased Dashrath and therefore, he had rushed there with
one Raju Jadhav. When they reached at spot, they saw deceased lying in pool
of blood and both the accused - respondents seen fleeing from the spot of
incident. That Death is shown to be homicidal one. It is further pointed out
that apart from informant, prosecution had examined as many as nine
witnesses including witness PW5 Raju Narayan Jadhav. That there was slight
mistake in naming accused by informant in report i.e. instead of naming
present respondent no.2 as "Kailash Keshavrao Jadhav", wrongly and
inadvertently it is typed as "Ramesh Sheshrao Jadhav". That even said
mistake was promptly rectified by giving supplementary statement. Therefore,
it is his submission that merely on such count, case of prosecution, having
strong and reliable evidence, has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court
and therefore, it is his submission that there is total non-application of mind
and improper appreciation of evidence necessitating interference at the hands
of this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of leave to file appeal.
3. Here record shows that present respondent nos.1 and 2 were arrested
for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
IPC. Here it is emerging that on 28-02-2017 there were two instances;
3 ALS 96 OF 2020.odt
one taking place at around 10:00 a.m. and another in the afternoon. In the
morning instance, which was fall out as a result of removal of tin roof from
the house. Deceased Dashrath allegedly questioned accused Ramdas for
stealing his he-goat. It is in this backdrop the second instance seems to have
been taken place. However, on going through the evidence of informant, it
appears that there is apparent mistake in naming accused / respondent no.2
and his name is mentioned as "Ramesh Sheshrao Jadhav" instead of "Kailash
Keshavrao Jadhav". However, on going through the answers given by
informant in cross-examination, it is apparently doubtful whether he has seen
assault as claimed by him. Even the person allegedly accompanying him
namely Raju Jadhav is not found to be completely supporting PW1 Ankush.
Except these two witnesses, there is no other witness on occurrence or actual
assault. It is seen that even there is no prompt lodgement of FIR by PW1
Ankush. Communication at Exh.100, which is the information received about
occurrence is clear that there is ambiguity and incomplete information. All
this is happening even at the instance of Police Officer. There is also ambiguity
and inconsistency about presence of PW5 Raju Narayan Jadhav at the spot of
incident. Therefore, evidence of very informant and said witness i.e. so called
eye witness has come under shadow of doubt. Entire story of prosecution
comes under cloud. Except these two witnesses, rest of the witnesses do not
seem to have any role except stating about some quarrel taking place in the
morning session on 28-02-2017.
4 ALS 96 OF 2020.odt
4. Therefore, when there is already animosity between complainant party
and accused party, the above quality of evidence cannot be said to be itself
sufficient to hold accused persons guilty. Prosecution does not seem to have
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, learned trial Judge, in
our considered opinion, has committed no error in rejecting case of
prosecution. We are not satisfied with the grounds raised before us to grant
leave to file appeal. In our opinion, no purpose would be served by granting
leave with such quality of evidence on record. Resultantly, we proceed to pass
following order :
ORDER
Application for leave to file appeal by State is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
SPT
Signed by: Santosh P. Takalkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/10/2023 17:32:29
