Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramrao Kishan Bhosale And Ors on 14 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22199
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2006
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Limbgaon, Dist. Nanded. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Ramrao Kishan Bhosale,
Age : 42 years, Occu. : Agri.,
2. Shankerrao Kishan Bhosale,
Age : 30 years, Occu. : Agri.,
3. Laxman Kishan Bhosale,
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Agri.,
4. Kishan Bhujangrao Bhosale,
Age : 70 years, Occu. : Agri.,
All R/o. Waghi ... Respondent.
.....
Mr. N. D. Batule, APP for Appellant.
Mr. G. D. Kale, Advocate for Respondents.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 31 JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 14 AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated
17.10.2005 is questioned by State by which learned J.M.F.C. Nanded
acquitted respondents from offence punishable under sections 324,
504, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt
2. Present respondents were charge-sheeted on the premise
that, on 01.01.2002, PW1 Satwaji was taking lunch at his own house
at around 2:00 p.m. His grandson PW2 Kalidas came and informed
him about scuffle going on in the field between accused persons and
his son Baliram. When he rushed there and questioned accused, it is
alleged that accused Rama gave stick blow on his head causing
bleeding injury. He claims to have approached Limbgaon Police
Station, which allegedly referred him to the hospital. After which he
lodged report at Exh.20 resulting into registration of crime.
PW5 P.I. Mohd. Giyauddin carried out investigation and
after gathering sufficient evidence, charge-sheeted accused and
accused persons were made to face trial before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nanded, wherein oral evidence of in all five
witnesses on behalf of prosecution and documentary evidence were
adduced. Defence also adduced one witness. After hearing arguments
of both sides, learned trial Judge was pleased to reject the case of
prosecution and acquit the accused.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned APP criticizing the judgment and order and
would submits that there was overwhelming and clinching evidence
about occurrence. That, informant himself was an injured. He had
seen accused persons scuffling with his son, and therefore, he has
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt
questioned the accused. That, accused Rama assaulted him by means
of stick causing him bleeding injury. Learned APP pointed out that,
in support of injury, PW4 Dr. Uday Patil has been examined and
injury certificate is also placed on record. He further pointed out
that, there is another one child witness PW2 Kalidas, who also
accompanying the complainant and he has supported the testimony
of PW1 informant. Therefore, according to learned APP, there was
cogent and convincing evidence regarding the occurrence. He pointed
out that, there is civil dispute between the accused and complainant,
who are adjoining neighbours with each other. That, evidence of PW1
informant and PW2 Kalidas has remained unshaken. That, there is
also evidence of PW3 independent witness and thus according to
learned APP, prosecution's evidence was liable to be accepted to hold
the charges proved, but the learned trial court failed to correctly
appreciate the same and erred in rejecting the case. Hence, he seeks
interference.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submit
that, there is false implication. That, there was animosity due to civil
dispute. That, there is no corroboration to the evidence of
complainant. He pointed out that, injuries suffered is admitted by
doctor to be possible due to fall. That, evidence of PW2 child witness
has been rightly discarded by learned trial court in view of testimony
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt
of DW1. He further pointed out that there were independent
witnesses, none of them have been examined. As the essential
ingredients of none of the sections under which the accused were
charge-sheeted were available, learned counsel for respondent
canvasses in support of the acquittal and urges dismissal of the
appeal for want of merits.
EVIDENCE ON RECORD
5. Re-appreciated and re-analyzed the evidence. As stated,
prosecution evidence is comprises of 05 witnesses. PW1 Satwaji
informant, who is examined at Exh.19; PW2 Kalidas, child witness,
who is examined at Exh.26; PW3 Rameshwar, panch witness, who is
examined at Exh.27; PW4 Dr. Uday Patil, medical expert, who is
examined at Exh.29 and PW5 P.I. Mohd. Giyauddin is the
Investigating Officer.
ANALYSIS
6. Crucial evidence is only of informant PW1 Satwaji and
PW2 Kalidas. PW1 informant in his testimony has narrated about
getting news from his grandson PW2 Kalidas regarding scuffle going
on between accused and his son Baliram and therefore, informant
rushed to the spot and for questioning about the scuffle and beating,
it is alleged that accused Rama hit a stick blow on the head of
informant. PW2 Kalidas is also examined to lend support to the
evidence of PW1 informant. He has also stated about being present at
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt
the field with his mother and seeing scuffle running towards village to
inform his grandfather and they both allegedly came. However, in
defence DW1 Venkatrao is examined, who is school teacher and he
has produced on record the attendance register. The extract of
attendance register shows that on particular day PW2 was present in
the school. Therefore, there is evidence suggesting PW2 Kalidas to be
in the school rather than in the field. Surprisingly, injured Baliram
with whom there was scuffle, does not seem to have examined, for the
best reasons known to the prosecution. Even the persons, who
allegedly indulged, are not examined. PW3 Rameshwar is the spot
panch, but he has not supported the prosecution. Therefore, virtually
there is no independent evidence supporting the case of PW1
informant.
7. Another undisputed aspect is that, in spite of occurrence
taking place on 01.01.2002 and in spite of complainant attributing
beating to other family members, they are also not examined. Even
though he has claimed that other two family members were
examined by Doctor, they have not accompanied him on the same
day. As pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, though
complainant claims to have approached police and police had further
referred him to medical examination, medical expert has candidly
admitted that PW1 has come on his own and there was no referral by
Cri-Appeal-353-2006-odt
police. Doctor has admitted possibility of injury due to fall. Stick is
not recovered.
8. Therefore, in the light of such evidence on record, learned
trial Judge has refused to accept the case of prosecution as it is not
proved beyond reasonable doubt, more particularly, when there is
animosity, then caliber of evidence has to be on higher side. Bearing
in mind the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with
appeal against acquittal, this court does not find any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned Judgment. No case for interference being
made out, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
