Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shivaji Mahadev Yadav And Ors (Appeal ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
2024:BHC-AS:4543
sg 1/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.124 OF 2014
The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant
v/s.
Shivaji Mahadev Yadav And Ors. .. Respondents
....
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP, for Appellant/State.
Ms. Meghna Gowalani, for the Respondents.
....
CORAM: PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra under
Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 14 th March 2012 passed by
learned J.M.F.C., Palus, District Sangli in R.C.C. No.321 of 2008.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
On 20th January 2006, the informant was working in cattle
shed. Accused nos. 1 to 4 came there with labourers in the field
bearing Gat No.236A to cut the sugarcane crop. The first informant
went to the field and questioned the accused about their acts and told
1 of 12
sg 2/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
them not to cut the sugarcane without measurement and partition of
their shares. The accused replied that they have order of the Court and
abused the first informant. The informant again told them not to cut
sugarcane without settling her share. Accused nos. 2 to 4 assaulted her
with sticks. Her clothes were torn. She sustained bleeding injuries.
She shouted for help. Some persons came to the spot and rescued her.
The informant went to Bhilwadi outpost of Palus Police Station and
filed report. FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections
324, 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completing
investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. Charge was framed for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 325, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned J.M.F.C., vide judgment and order dated 14 th
March 2012, acquitted all the accused of the offences under Sections
324, 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned APP for the Appellant State submitted that the
judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on record. The
prosecution has succeeded in adducing cogent evidence. The
occurrence of incident is not denied by the accused. The injured had
sustained injuries. The prosecution has proved injury certificate. The
injuries were sustained by the injured due to assault by accused. It is
2 of 12
sg 3/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
not the case of the defence that the injuries were self-inflicted. The
judgment of trial court is perverse and contrary to evidence. There is
corroborative evidence on record to prove the charges. The evidence
does not suffer from any omissions, contradictions. The accused, in
their statements under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code,
admitted the fact that there was a dispute over cutting of sugarcane on
the day of incident between the accused and the first informant. The
statements under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code indicate
that there was an incident of assault due to such dispute and accused
no.1 had suffered injury in that incident. P.W. no.1 had identified the
weapon of assault. Assault caused injuries to the injured. The injuries
suffered by the injured were CLW of 2x1x 1cm bone deep over frontal
region. CLW of 2x1x1 cm bone deep over right parietal region no
fracture and various contusions and abrasions. There was no reason to
discard the evidence of eye-witnesses. The statement of informant and
eye-witnesses corroborate. The weapon was seized. The trial court has
erroneously discarded the evidence of witnesses. There were eye-
witnesses to the incident.
6. Learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted
that the trial court has adopted possible view. No case is made out to
interfere in the judgment of acquittal. The evidence of witnesses
suffers from serious infirmities. Panch witnesses have turned hostile.
Two witnesses have supported prosecution case. It is a settled law that
3 of 12
sg 4/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the acquittal of accused.
The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
If the trial court's view is possible and plausible, the High Court should
not subsist the same by its own possible views. Reasons given by the
trial court for recording the order of acquittal were cogent and
convincing. The prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities of
which a benefit is given to the accused. The trial court has rightly held
that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges. The prosecution
case is that P.W. 1 was assaulted by accused no.1 with scythes and
accused nos. 2 to 4 assaulted with sticks. Sticks and scythes were
seized. The Panch witnesses (PW4 and PW11) have supported
prosecution's case. Evidence of P.W.9 is not reliable. P.W.9 stated that
accused Yashwant Yadav produced scythes and two sticks at police
station. Description of the articles was not given. The witness
admitted that such articles are available easily in the market. The
recovery panchnama does not show any blood stained stick. There are
contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. The witness of Medical
Officer shows that he examined P.W.1. Certificate was issued by P.W.2.
The medical certificate does not mention the history of assault by
scythes or sticks. Hence, no case is made out for the interference in the
judgment of acquittal.
7. Ms. Gowalani has relied upon the following decisions:
4 of 12
sg 5/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
1. Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat
(1996) 9 SCC page 225
2. Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2008) 10 SCC 450
8. In the case of Ramesh Bhai Doshi vs. State of Gujarat , the
Apex Court has referred to the approach of the appellate court while
adjudicating the appeal against acquittal. In the said case, the Gujarat
High Court had reversed the acquittal of the accused tried for the
offence under Section 302 IPC. The Apex Court observed that the
approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently
wrong for it did not access itself to the question as to whether the
reasons which weighed with the trial court for recording the order of
acquittal were proper or not. High Court thereof made independent of
the entire evidence to arrive at the conclusion. The Apex Court had
repeatedly laid down that mere fact that a view other than the one
taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate
court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and
sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes
to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing
with the evidence was patently illegal or the consequences arrived at by
it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal,
the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question
whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly
5 of 12
sg 6/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court
answers the above questions in the negative, the order of acquittal is
not to be disturbed. If the appellate court holds, for the reasons to be
recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view
of any of the infirmities, it can only reappraise the evidence to arrive at
its own conclusions.
9. In the case of Ghure Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra),
the Apex Court was dealing with an appeal directed against the
judgment of the High Court passed in appeal. The trial court had
acquitted the accused in the case of murder. The High Court refers the
trial court's decision, and convicted the accused. The Apex Court
observed that the appellate court failed to give proper weight to the
powers of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses, thereby
ignoring the standards by which the appellate court consider appeals
against acquittal. It was observed that the appellate court is given wide
powers to review the evidence to come to its own conclusions. But this
power must be exercised with great care and caution in order to ensure
that the innocents are not punished, the appellate court should attach
due weight to the lower court's acquittal because the presumption of
innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal. The appellate court
should, therefore, reverse an acquittal only when it has very substantial
and compelling reasons. The accused has presumed innocence until
proven guilty. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that
6 of 12
sg 7/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
he is innocent. Presumption of innocence in favour of accused further
gets reinforced and strengthened by the acquittal of trial court. If trial
court's view is possible and plausible, the High Court should not
substitute the same by its own possible views. Due or proper weight
and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision and
findings. An acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered unless
it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable. The trial court has the
advantage of watching the demure of the witnesses. The appellate
court undoubtedly has wide powers of re-appreciating and re-
evaluating the entire evidence. But it would be justified in interfering
with the judgment of acquittal only when the judgment of the trial
court is palpably wrongly, totally ill-founded or wholly misconceived,
based on erroneous analysis of evidence and non-existing material,
demonstrably unsustainable or perverse.
10. P.W. 1 has stated that incident took place on 20 th January
2006. Accused were having sticks. They rushed towards her. She was
assaulted. She admitted that there was civil suit pending in the Court
and that there are strips in the land behind their houses and, out of
that, first strip belongs to her husband and the other belongs to
accused no.1. She also admitted that accused no.1 is cultivating the
land since last 6 to 7 years by growing sugarcane. At the time of
incident, 15 to 16 labourers had come to cut the sugarcane with articles
like scythes. There was quarrel between the complainant and the
7 of 12
sg 8/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
accused. The workers surrounded her. She sustained injury. Some of
the labourers were women. She asked them not to cut sugarcane.
P.W.2 is the Medical Officer. He has referred to the injuries sustained
by the injured. He admitted that he has not brought the original
register with him. He has not mentioned yadi number in his certificate
as well as OPD number. At the time of examination of lady patient,
lady attendant must be there and such reference should be made in his
certificate. PW2 admitted that assault is by sticks. There can be wheel
marks on body. Certificate is silent. The colour of injuries is not
mentioned. Reason is not mentioned in the certificate. Injuries in
Exhibit-41 are possible by fall on the ground. PW3 is the panch
witness for recovery. He did not support prosecution case. PW4 is
another panch witness for spot panchnama. He admitted that he was
Vice Chairman of Laxmi Irrigation, which supplied water to Gat
No.236/1 belonging to father of accused. He always visits police
station in relation to work of villagers. Accused are paying water
charges for the water scheme. He did not seek sugarcane bill in Gat
No.236/1. He has good relations with the complainant and her
husband. He admitted that nothing was seized in his presence. PW5 is
the son of informant. He is the eye-witness to the incident. He
admitted that in Gat No.236/1, sugarcane crop was taken by accused
and, from time to time, sugarcane has been sent to the factories in the
name of accused. He admitted that labourers in the field were having
scythes in their hands. Torn clothes of his mother was shown to the
8 of 12
sg 9/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
police. Accused no.1 lodged complaint alleging that his mother had
inflicted blow of axe on him. He also admitted that the accused have
lodged complaint against his maternal uncles, namely, Dilip and
Mahadev. PW6 is daughter of informant. She has reiterated the
version of PW1 and PW5. She admitted that her father-in-law is in
police department. At the time of incident, her father-in-law was
employed at Palus Police Station. She admitted that accused no.1
lodged complaint of assault by axe on the same day. Sugarcane crop
was cultivated by accused in the said field. Her mother obstructed the
labourers from cutting sugarcane. She tried to rescue her mother. But
the sad fact is not mentioned in the statement recorded by police.
PW7 is another eye-witness to the incident. He stated that there was
dispute between the complainant and accused relating to the field.
Accused assaulted complainant by sticks and scythes. During the
quarrel, the clothes of the complainant were torn. The witness
admitted that sugarcane crop cannot be seen from the cattle shed
situated from the house of the complainant. Weapons like scythes are
available in the market. PW8 is the Medical Officer. He stated that
the patient had narrated history of assault. He produced MLC register.
Patient received primary treatment at Bhilwadi. He found three
injuries. The inward/outward number is not mentioned in Exhibit-59.
He has not produced the register and case papers. He has not
personally treated the patient. Exhibit-59 does not bear seal of the
office as well as signature. No identification mark is recorded in
9 of 12
sg 10/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
Exhibit-59. PW9 has stated that axe and sticks were seized. He do not
know whether accused no.1 filed complaint against complainant about
assault. The articles like scythes are available in market. P.W.10 has
stated that complainant and accused are neighbours. There were
frequent disputes between the parties in relation to the field. He
admitted that the incident took place on 20th January, 2006 at 8.00
a.m. He admitted that in the field, sugarcane crop was cultivated by
accused. At the time of the incident, there were 10 female and 10 male
labourers cutting sugarcane. PW11 is the panch witness of seizure
panchnama. He has not supported the prosecution case. PW12 is the
Investigating Officer. He did not produce occurrence report with
charger-sheet, though occurrence register is maintained with outpost
Bhilwadi. He stated that the incident took place at the time of cutting
sugarcane crop. The labourers of sugar factory did not come for
cutting the sugarcane. Nothing was seized from the spot of incident.
He has not seized the torn clothes of complainant. In front of the
house of complainant, there is cattle shed. From the cattle shed the
field cannot be viewed. On the same day, accused no.1 lodged a
complaint against the complainant. On 20 th January 2006, one
complaint was lodged against brothers of complainant regarding assault
to accused and wife of accused no.1. Crime was registered.
11. The trial court analyzed the evidence of witnesses and also
noted the flaws of investigation. On appreciating the evidence, the
10 of 12
sg 11/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
trial court acquitted the accused. I do not find any reason to interfere
in the judgment of acquittal.
12. On scrutiny of evidence, it is apparent that there was
dispute between both the sides on account of agricultural field. The
accused were cultivating the agriculture field. The complainant had
questioned the accused. There was allegedly quarrel. The medical
evidence does not corroborate the version of the witness. Panch
witnesses have not supported. Both of the witnesses are relatives of the
complainant. On the same day, complaint was lodged by accused no.1
against the complainant alleging that she was assaulted with axe.
Apparently, no investigation was done in respect of the said complaint.
The trial court has given benefit of doubt to the accused. The
relationship between the accused and the complainant were strained.
There is every possibility of exaggeration of the incident but to falsely
implicate the accused. There are contradictions in the evidence of the
witnesses. Considering the circumstances, there is no reason to disturb
the findings of the trial court. The medical certificate does not
mention the alleged history of assault by scythes or sticks. The
certificate refers to 11 injuries caused to PW1. PW2 has stated that
injuries no. 1, 2 3 are possible with assault by scythes and sticks.
Remaining injuries are possible by assault of sticks. All the injuries are
of simple nature. History does not support the version that shot was
their size. Certificate does not refer to the name of the lady attendant.
11 of 12
sg 12/12 1.apeal124-14.doc
The evidence of Medical Officer refers to discrepancies. The trial court
has given a finding that the evidence suffers from omissions,
contradictions and exaggerations. The informant was aggressive party.
The Investigating Officer has not taken due care while investigating
and not made enquiry in relation to complaint lodged by accused no.1.
The prosecution has failed to give explanations about injury suffered
by accused no.1. The delay in not lodging FIR is not explained. The
evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by eye-witnesses and medical
evidence. Accused cannot be held guilty of such evidence.
Considering the nature of case and the principles enunciated by the
Apex Court, no case is made out to allow the appeal.
ORDER
(i) Appeal dismissed.
(ii) For the assistance rendered by appointed Advocate Ms.
Meghna Gowalani, High Court Legal Services Authority shall
pay the professional fees to her in accordance with rules.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
12 of 12
