Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Pradip Babaso Deokar on 13 August, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
(17)ALS-6-2024.doc
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2024
State of Maharashtra ] .. Applicant
vs.
Pradip Babaso Deokar ] .. Respondent
Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for the State-Applicant.
Mr.Sagar Sonawane h/f Umesh Pawar for the Respondent.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2024.
P.C.
1] Heard the learned APP Mr.Gavand for the State.
With his able assistance, we have perused the impugned
Judgment, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur on
10.05.2023 in Sessions Case No.38/2021, where the accused was tried
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
The impugned Judgment has acquitted him of the charge with
the following observations :
"(17) The I.O. has not produced the mobile phone of injured
or her husband, nor filed the call detailed records. The
statement of injured also not recorded immediately in the
(17)ALS-6-2024.doc
hospital, though she was not unconscious. I.O. has not given
any explanation in respect of recording delayed statement of
injured. Medical Officer (PW 6) has also failed to opine
whether injuries mentioned in medical certificate (Exh.25) were
sufficient to cause death of injured Sindhu. The prosecution
has examined the eye witness (PW 3). His presence on the
spot is also doubtful, as he has not given the papers about
cultivation of land of Shri. Parit to police. Moreover, in the spot
panchanama (Exh.16) I.O. has not mentioned the land of Shri
Parit adjacent to the house of complainant. Therefore, his
evidence does not inspire confidence.
(18) Considering the above-said evidence of complainant
(PW 1) and injured (PW 4), the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charges framed against accused."
2] On perusal of the evidence of the eye witnesses including the
injured being examined as PW 3 and reading of the evidence of PW 6
Dr. Umesh Chougule, who was running Chougule Hospital, where PW
3 was brought as she had sustained injuries on her face, head, neck,
right hand and finger and he treated her by admitting her in his hospital
for 6 days. PW 6 has issued Medical Certificate, in which he recorded
11 injuries, all in form of contused lacerated wounds and with the
description of the part of the body where such injuries were sustained.
He categorically deposed that injury at Sr. No.5 was a fracture
injury.
3] Merely because in the cross-examination when suggestion was
given to him that the multiple injuries can be caused by assault by 4-5
(17)ALS-6-2024.doc
persons, and only on the ground that he has not stated that the injuries
were sufficient to cause death of injured Sindhu, the additional
Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused.
4] The conclusion derived by the learned Judge is apparently
erroneous as PW 3 in sync with other eye witnesses have narrated the
case of prosecution and this is fortified /corroborated by the doctor who
found the injuries and issued certificate accordingly.
In the wake of above, we grant leave to Appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. Sagar Sonawane, waive service of notice
on behalf of Respondent/Original accused.
Call for Record and Proceedings.
Re-notify to 14.11.2024, for directions.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J [BHARATI DANGRE, J]
