Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Shivaji Sayanna Kankante And Ors on 12 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21782
CriAppeal-710-2004
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Degloor,
Taluka Degloor,
District Nanded. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Shivaji s/o Sayanna Kankante,
Age 45 years,
2. Ashok s/o Mallu Chintalwar,
Age 32 years,
3. Raju s/o Rajling Yangulwar,
Age 30 years,
4. Sopan s/o Vithal Basatwar,
Age 35 years,
5. Gangaram s/o Sayanna Thankangar,
Age 68 years,
6. Gangareddy s/o Linguram Yanawar,
Age 42 years,
7. Ganesh s/o Shankarrao Patil,
Age 25 years,
8. Venkat Naganna Alure,
Age 32 years,
All r/o Shahapur, Taluka Degloor,
District Nanded. ... Respondents
(Ori. Accused)
.....
Mr. N. D. Batule, APP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Sanket S. Palnitkar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to
8.
.....
CriAppeal-710-2004
-2-
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 07.08.2025
Pronounced on : 12.08.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. State is hereby assailing judgment and order of acquittal dated
22.07.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in
Special Case No. 02 of 2004, by which present respondents faced trial
for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
[for short, SCST Act], 324 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 7(1)(d) of
Protection of Civil Rights Act.
2. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that, during
pendency of this appeal, respondent no.4 Sopan s/o Vithal Basatwar
died on 27.04.2021 and respondent no.5 Gangaram s/o Sayanna
Thankangar died on 10.10.2006. Original death certificates of both
the respondents are placed on record. In view of the same, the appeal
stands abated as against such respondents.
CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF
3. Informant Madhav approached Degloor Police Station and
lodged report that, on 21.07.2003 while he was cultivating grazing
ground, accused persons came armed with sticks. Accused no.8
CriAppeal-710-2004
Venkat, who was armed with axe, hurled caste abuses and even
inflicted blow on the head by blunt side of the axe. Accused No.3 Raju
gave blow with spade, accused Ashok, Gangareddy, Gangaram gave
kicks and fist blows while accused Shivaji instigated all of them. On
receipt of such report, FIR was registered bearing No. 88 of 2003.
Crime was investigated and on completion of the same, accused
persons were chargesheeted.
4. Special case was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
wherein prosecution rested its case on the evidence of in all five
witnesses apart from relying on documentary evidence like FIR, spot
panchanama etc.
5. Defence denied to lead evidence and answered incriminating
material posed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Arguments advanced by
both sides were heard and on analyzing the evidence, learned trial
Judge was pleased to acquit accused nos. 1 to 7 from all charges,
however, convicted only accused no.8 Venkat for offence under
Section 324 of IPC.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to
7, State has come up in appeal.
CriAppeal-710-2004
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of the Appellant-State :
6. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by learned
APP is that, victim complainant testified and defined role of each of
the accused. He has reiterated contents of FIR. That, nothing adverse
was brought in his cross examination. According to learned APP,
complainant's testimony found support from the evidence of PW2,
who was an independent witness and was working in the adjoining
field. Thus, according to learned APP, there was sufficient
corroboration.
7. As regards to injury is concerned, learned APP pointed out that
the doctor who examined and treated complainant has also stepped in
the witness box and has narrated the nature and type of injuries.
That, injury certificate is also issued and taken on record. Thus,
according to learned APP, occurrence has been substantially proved
by prosecution. However, according to him, in spite of availability of
overwhelming evidence, learned trial court disbelieved prosecution
story opining that, version of complainant and PW2 are exaggerated
and improvised. Learned APP would add that there are slight
CriAppeal-710-2004
variances in the testimony, but the core of testimony of both the
witnesses has remained intact. Therefore, conclusion drawn by
learned trial Judge is faulted at.
8. As regards to caste abuse is concerned, learned APP submitted
that, caste certificate is placed on record. The authority which issued
caste certificate is also examined. Caste utterance and abuse was in
open and public place and therefore, according to him, required
ingredients to attracts the provisions of SCST Act were very much
available, however, the same has been disbelieved, and it is so
because of improper appreciation of facts, evidence as well as law and
hence, it is prayed that appeal be allowed.
On behalf of the Respondents-Accused :
9. Countering the above submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents would point out that there is correct appreciation by the
trial court. He pointed out that, eight accused were chargesheeted
and one is already convicted and for the more reason, he submits
that, it is improper to question the impugned judgment on the ground
of improper appreciation. He pointed out that, roles are not
crystallized; similarly, caste abuse is attributed in chorus and hence it
CriAppeal-710-2004
is rightly disbelieved. He further submitted that, the evidence of PW1-
informant and PW2 is not consistent. According to learned counsel,
when there are allegations of assault by 8 persons, how could
complainant suffer only three injuries. He pointed out that, according
to complainant, 20 persons had gathered, but no independent witness
has been examined, including, Gangaram and Laxman. For above
reasons, canvassing in favour of the judgment passed by learned trial
Judge, he prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
10. Prosecution has examined in all five witnesses in support of its
case. Their role and status and the sum and substance of their
evidence can be summarized as under :
11. PW1 Madhav, who is examined at Exhibit 52, gave his caste
and stated that he had encroached over grazing land owned by the
Government, but there is panchanama about he to be in possession
and so he had initiated proceedings before Tahsildar. According to
him, on 21.07.2003 while he was ploughing the field, all accused
present before the court came. They said to him "Dhedgya
Mangadgya" and asked him how he was ploughing the land and
CriAppeal-710-2004
whether it belongs to his father. He testified that Venkat was holding
axe, Raju was holding spade. Venkat assaulted him by axe on head
from the blunt side causing him bleeding head injury. Shivaji assured
to manage police. Sopan hit him with stick on the back and others
assaulted him by kicks and fist blows. Hearing his cries, Gangaram
and Laxman intervened and he rushed to the police station to lodge
report, which he identified to be at Exhibit 53.
12. PW2 Laxman, in his evidence at Exhibit 54, stated that he is
brother of complainant Madhav and his land is adjacent to land of his
brother. While he was present in his land, accused before the court
hurled caste abuses and beat his brother. Venkat hit his brother by
blunt side of axe; Raju assaulted by handle of spade and Gangareddy
manhandled his brother. He and two to three persons intervened.
13. PW3 Ganesh is the doctor who allegedly examined complainant
Madhav and issued certificate Exhibit 59. According to him, Madhav
had suffered contusion with abrasion on occipital part as well as right
frontal parietal region as well as abrasion on frontal region of scalp.
Doctor certified injuries to be simple.
CriAppeal-710-2004
14. PW4 Sub Divisional Officer produced caste certificates Exhibit
67 to 71 and he deposed to that extent.
15. PW5 is the authority who issued caste certificate and he
deposed to that extent.
ANALYSIS
16. Thus, here, eight accused are made to face trial. Prosecution
adduced evidence of five witnesses. Crucial evidence is only of PW1
and PW2. Rest of the witnesses are doctor and authorities who
tendered and issued caste certificate.
17. On critical evaluation of evidence of PW1 Madhav, it is clearly
emerging that, though he attributed caste abuse, it is apparently in
chorus. Who amongst the eight accused hurled the abuse is not
clarified. Witness has stated that "they said to him Dhedgya,
Mangadgya". Therefore, on the aspect of hurling caste abuse, it being
in chorus and not directed against any particular accused, cannot be
considered.
CriAppeal-710-2004
18. As regards to injuries are concerned, he has alleged assault by
Venkat by means of axe. Venkat is already held guilty by trial court.
As regards to other accused Raju is concerned, he has only stated
about this accused holding spade. No overt act is attributed for using
the said article. As regards to accused Sopan for using stick for hitting
it on his back is concerned, doctor has not found any injury or mark
on the back and it is evident from doctor's testimony and certificate.
Even in cross of complainant, omission is brought to the extent of
informing police regarding assault by Sopan. As regards to other
accused are concerned, again, without specifying or naming accused,
allegations are levelled about giving kicks and fist blows. In cross,
complainant has answered that, his clothes were blood stained but
the same were not before the court.
19. PW2 is also examined but apparently he is brother of
complainant and he also testified about accused coming to his
brother. However, he merely testified that they hurled caste abuses
and beat him. He too has not defined overt act of each of the accused,
nor has specified who exactly hurled caste abuses. As stated by his
brother, he has also attributed role to Venkat for using blunt side of
the axe, but Venkat is already convicted. According to him, Raju
CriAppeal-710-2004
assaulted by handle of the spade, but informant has not stated so.
Therefore, brothers are not consistent.
20. Informant in his cross has stated that, over 30 to 40 persons
were present at the time of incident. He has named Gangaram and
Laxman for intervening and separating, but unfortunately, they too
are not examined. Therefore, apart from testimony of PW1
complainant and PW2 brother, which is full of material omissions,
there is no trustworthy or convincing evidence. Complainant seems to
be cultivating land owned by the Government which was meant for
grazing cattle and he has himself stated about encroaching over it. In
such backdrop, when objection was said to be raised, some
occurrence had taken place resulting into FIR, but for above reasons,
testimony of complainant and his brother being ambiguous and non-
specific, no credence can be laid on it. As stated above, accused
Venkat, to whom role of assault by axe is attributed, is already held
guilty. Against accused nos. 1 to 7 who are acquitted, apparently
there are general, omnibus allegations.
21. In the light of above discussion, even on complete re-analysis
and re-appreciation, this Court is also convinced that there is no
material against accused nos. 1 to 7. The view taken by the learned
CriAppeal-710-2004
trial Judge is the only possible view that could emerge with such
quality of evidence. Resultantly, no case for interference being made
out, the following order is passed :
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
