Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra vs Balasaheb Shankar Nevale And Ors on 4 April, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:17647
          P.H. Jayani                                                    30 APEAL142.2004.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2004

                   The State of Maharashtra
                   (Through Complainant Rajkumar
                   Shankar Ingle)                                 ..... Appellant
                                                              (Original Complainant)

                            v/s.

          1.       Balasaheb Shankar Nevale

          2.       Ganpat Shankar Nevale
                   (Both adult r/o. Govitri
                   Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune)

          3.       Gabaji Shripat Gaikwad

          4.       Sunil Gabaji Gaikwad
                   (Both adult r/o. Kambre Maval)
                   Taluka Maval, Dist. Pune

          5.       Uttam Dnyanoba Satkar
                   Age : 40 years, Occ. Agriculture
                   R/o. Kanhe Maval, Pune
                   Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune.

          6.       Natha Baburao Ghule
                   Age : 28 years, Occ. Agriculture,
                   R/o. Katvi, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune.              ..... Respondents
                                                          (Original Accused Nos.1 to 6)


          Ms. R.S. Tendulkar, APP for the Appellant - State.
          Mr. V.B. Tapkir for Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6.
          Ms. Megha Gowalani, appointed Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.


                                                   CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

                                                   DATED : 4th APRIL, 2025

                                                                                                1/10


                    ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2025              ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2025 02:24:16 :::
 P.H. Jayani                                                   30 APEAL142.2004.doc

JUDGMENT :

. Present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order

dated 30th May, 2003 in Regular Criminal Case No.283/2000, passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadgaon, District Pune

thereby the Respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 353, 332, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 19 (b), 20 (1) (2) of the Grampanchayat Act of 1959.

2) Heard Ms. Tendulkar, the learned APP for the Appellant -

State, Mr. Tapkir, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6 and

Ms. Gowalani, the learned appointed Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to

4. Perused the record. The Appeal is abated against Respondent No.3.

(Hereinafter the Respondents are being referred to as per

their original status in the trial Court, i.e., 'Accused Nos.1 to 6.')

3) The case as put forth by the prosecution is that, on dated

24/08/2000, at about 11:00 a.m., the first informant - Rajkumar

Shankar Ingle (PW2) was present in the office of Grampanchayat of

village Govitri ("the office"), to conduct the election of Sarpanch and

Deputy Sarpanch for the said village. The timings to submit the

nomination forms were from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. A candidate

namely Baban Mohol submitted his form for the post of Deputy

Sarpanch, at about 10:30 a.m. Sau. Suman Nanekar submitted her form

for the post of Sarpanch, at about 10:35 a.m. PW2 noted the timings on

P.H. Jayani 30 APEAL142.2004.doc

their nomination forms. Thereafter, one Dnyanoba Pawar submitted his

form for the post of Sarpanch and one Ganpat Shedge submitted his

nomination form for the post of Deputy Sarpanch. PW2 gave them an

acknowledgement of the receipt. At about 11:00 a.m., all the accused

entered in the Office. The police resisted the accused persons, but they

forcibly entered in the office without any reason. Then Accused No.1

snatched the nomination forms of Dnyanoba Pawar and Laxman

Gaikwad, but the police successfully removed the form of Damu Pawar

from the hands of Accused No.1. However, Accused No.1 torn the form of

Laxman Pawar. The Accused No.1 and his associates also threatened PW2

that he should not accept the said form, otherwise they would kill him.

Then police intervened and withdrew the accused persons from the office.

Thereafter, PW2 telephonically contacted with the Tahsildar and

cancelled the election. Then, PW2 approached the police and filed his oral

report (Exh.60). The police registered the said report as FIR bearing

No.180/2000 under Sections 143, 353, 332, 452, 504 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code.

4) During investigation, police recorded the spot panchnama and

the statement of witnesses. The police arrested the accused persons.

Investigation revealed that the accused persons committed the offences

as stated above. Accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court at Vadgaon.

 P.H. Jayani                                                   30 APEAL142.2004.doc

5)                In turn, the learned Magistrate framed charge to which the

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the charge,

the prosecution examined the following witnesses :-

PW-1 Dilip Ganpat Bhakre Police present on spot Exhibit-58 PW-2 Rajkumar Shankar Ingale First Informant Exhibit-59 PW-3 Sanjay Dattu Bagade Peon of the GP Office Exhibit-63 PW-4 Dattu Maruti Gurav Panch witness Exhibit-64 PW-5 Balu Damu Sonavane Peon of the GP Office Exhibit-65 PW-6 Sampat Dnyanoba Choudhary Gramsevak Exhibit-73 PW-7 Baban Mahadu Mohol Eye witness Exhibit-75 PW-8 Ramesh Baburao Barge Investigation Officer Exhibit-80

6) Ms. Tendulkar, the learned APP submitted that there is

consistent evidence by PW1 and PW2 which proved that at the relevant

time, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly having common

object to commit house trespass with preparation to assault and hurt

PW2 and to deter him from discharging his duty as public servant. While

committing that act, the accused persons snatched the nomination forms

and tore them. The accused persons also intentionally insulted PW2 and

threatened to kill him. The said evidence of PW1 and PW2 did not shatter

in the cross-examination. As such, the offences stated in the charge were

proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial Court, however, refused to

accept the evidence for minor inconsistencies and acquitted the accused.

Said approach of the trial Court is against the settled principle of law.

Therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order is not lawful.

 P.H. Jayani                                                      30 APEAL142.2004.doc

7)                Mr. Tapkir, the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 6

and Ms. Gowalani, the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, on

the other hand, submitted that there is material inconsistency in the

evidence of PW1 and PW2 compared to the report filed by PW2. Secondly,

they submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is general in nature.

The nomination forms were not seized which were allegedly snatched and

torn by Accused No.1. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt about

truthfulness of the prosecution story. They submitted that, both PW1 and

PW2 are interested witnesses and, considering the evidence as a whole, it

would be risky to rely upon their testimony without a corroborative

evidence. Therefore, the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to

prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not erroneous. Thus,

both learned Advocates supported the impugned Judgment and Order.

8) In view of the rival submissions, I have carefully of scrutinised

the evidence. PWs 3, to 6 did not support the prosecution case. Their

cross-examination by the learned APP did not yield any results.

9) The evidence of PW1 is that on the relevant date and at time,

PW2 was an Election Officer for the Gram Panchayat elections to be held

in the office of Gram Panchayat, Govitri. He was also present there for

the election duty. PW1 deposed that at about 10:15 a.m., Sabhapati Mr.

Shedge came there and asked PW2 to give two forms. He deposed that

PW2 refused to give the forms. On this, the Sabhapati told that there is

P.H. Jayani 30 APEAL142.2004.doc

danger to his candidate and he demanded for the police protection. PW1

deposed that as per the direction of PW2, he and police constable - Ingale

brought the candidate of the party of Mr. Shedge, before PW2. PW1

deposed that at that time, all the accused persons were present in the

Gram Panchayat Office. Then, quarrel took place between PW2 and the

accused. The accused asked PW2 not to accept the forms of those

candidates, alleging that the time to submit the forms was over. PW1

deposed that at that time, two forms were torn by snatching. He deposed

that Accused No.1 snatched one form from the hands of PW2, but it

teared. Another form was successfully removed by PC-Ingale. PW1

deposed that at that time, all the accused persons manhandled PW2.

PW1 deposed that thereafter they withdrew the accused from the office.

Then PW2 went to police station and filed the report.

9.1) In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that said election was

contested by separate two groups. Accused No.1 was the Sarpanch of

Govitri Gram Panchayat. Group of Mr. Shedge was opposite to the

accused party. He admitted that the candidates of Accused No.1 filled the

forms and sat inside the office at about 10:15 a.m. He admitted that,

Ganpat Shedge came in the office after 10:45 a.m. He admitted that

Ganpat Shedge demanded two forms from PW2; that, PW2 said to Mr.

Shedge that he was unable to give the forms as the quantity of the forms

was less; that, the said conversation went on for 2-3 minutes; and that,

P.H. Jayani 30 APEAL142.2004.doc

thereafter Mr. Shedge went away by taking the forms. PW1 admitted that

at that time he was standing at the door of the office. PW1 admitted that

then PW2 called himself and PHC-Ingale. PW2 told them that the

candidates of Mr. Shedge were in the house of Mr. Powar and directed

them to bring the said candidates. PW1 admitted that they brought those

candidates in the office. PW1 admitted that at the relevant time, the

person sitting inside the office told PW2 that the time for filing forms was

over and not to accept the nomination forms. PW1 admitted that several

persons had gathered near the GP office and shouting was going on there.

PW1 admitted that PW2 accepted the nomination form even though the

remaining candidates objected for the same alleging that the time to

accept the form was over. PW1 admitted that then there was commotion.

PW1 denied that, thereafter, PW2 received a message on mobile phone

that the election was cancelled. PW1 admitted that thereafter, the accused

and his party members went away. PW1 denied that he deposed false that

Accused No.1 snatched the nomination forms from the hands of PW2 due

to which the form was torn.

10) PW2 testified that at the relevant time he was present in the

office as an on duty election officer. The timings for accepting the

nomination forms was 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The candidates namely

Suman Nanekar and Baban Mohol submitted their nominations at about

10:30 a.m. At about 10:40 a.m., Ganpat Shedge came and demanded

P.H. Jayani 30 APEAL142.2004.doc

blank nomination forms. He gave two nomination forms to Ganpat

Shedge with instructions to fill up the forms and give it before 11:00 a.m.

PW2 deposed that near about 11:00 a.m., the candidates namely Laxman,

Ganpat and Pawar came in the office with the nomination forms. When

he was to acknowledgment their forms, Accused No.1 and other 5-6

persons came inside the office and they objected that the time was over

and therefore he sh0uld not accept the forms. PW2 deposed that at that

time, the accused persons snatched the forms from his hand. One piece

of one of the forms remained in his hand. PW2 deposed that then he told

the police present there to take back that form from the possession of the

accused persons. He deposed that the police had successfully got back one

form, but the remaining form was torn by the accused persons. PW2

deposed that he explained the accused persons that as per his watch, the

time had not lapsed and he could accept the forms. However, the accused

persons contended that, as per their watches, the time had lapsed. He

deposed that thereafter, he contacted Tahsildar-Mahval on a mobile

phone and informed him of incident and told the Tahsildar that he would

get another form filled from the candidate whose form was teared.

11) As stated in the FIR, the accused persons barged into the

office despite resistance by the police and then objected for accepting the

forms. However, the evidence of PW1 indicates that the accused persons

were already present in the office. As per the FIR, after snatching the

P.H. Jayani 30 APEAL142.2004.doc

forms, the form of Laxman Gaikwad was torn by Accused No.1. However,

this fact is not specifically deposed by PW1 or PW2. Evidence of PW1

indicates that only Accused No.1 snatched the forms from the hands of

PW2. However, according to PW2, all the accused persons snatched the

forms and one form was torn by all the accused persons. The forms

snatched and torn during the incident were not seized.

12) In so far as the act of threatening is concerned, even though

PW2 specifically deposed that Accused No.1 and others threatened that

they will cut his hands and legs and would kill him, PW2 did not

specifically state this fact in the report. That apart, PW2 did not explain

as to how the accused persons threatened him in chorus. PW1 did not

depose about such threatening. PW1 deposed that accused persons

manhandled PW2. However, PW2 has not deposed so in his testimony.

13) PW1 deposed that after the incident, he contacted the

Tahasildar on the phone. But in the cross-examination, PW2 admitted

that the said mobile was of Accused No.1. Therefore, the question that

arises is when Accused No.1 was against PW2, then why would he be so

modest to immediately hand over his mobile phone to PW2 to inform the

incident to Tahsildar and invite legal action against him. On the contrary,

considering the allegations in the FIR, Accused No.1 would refuse to give

his mobile to PW2 to contact the Tahasildar. Thus, an unnatural conduct

has been attributed to Accused No.1.

                    P.H. Jayani                                                  30 APEAL142.2004.doc

                   14)               Thus, on careful consideration of the evidence of the

prosecution, it is evident that there are material discrepancies in the

evidence of PW1 and PW2. Very unnatural conduct has been attributed to

Accused No.1 that he gave his mobile phone to PW2 to contact the

Tahasildar. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt about truthfulness of the

prosecution case. As held in the cited case of Jeet Ram vs. Narcotics

Control Bureau, Chandigarh1, if two reasonable conclusions are possible

on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not

disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. In the another

cited decision in Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal 2, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless a finding of acquittal is found to

be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the Appellate

Court to interfere with the same. The present case is of the aforesaid