Bombay High Court
Smt. Vatchalabai W/O Rangnath Korde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 21 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:4913
-1- Revn.367.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2023
1. Smt. Vatchalabai W/o. Rangnath Korde,
Age : 76 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur,
Dist. Jalna. ... Applicant
(Orig. Informant)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Senior Police Inspector,
Police Station, Partur,
Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.
2. Krushna Jijabhau Korde,
Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur,
Dist. Jalna.
3. Radhabai Krushna Korde,
Age : 42 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur,
Dist. Jalna.
4. Prabhu Jijabhau Korde,
Age : 43 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o. Village Amba, Tq. Partur,
Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents.
......
Mr. Md. Samiuddin M.Y. Choudhari, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. V.M. Chate, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Shubham Kote h/f. Mr. Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 FEBRUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21 FEBRUARY, 2025
-2- Revn.367.2023
JUDGMENT :
1. Revisionist takes an exception to judgment and order
passe by learned trial court and first appellate court in R.C.C.
No.15 of 2009 dated 09.03.2020 and Criminal Appeal No.29 of
2020 dated 18.08.2023 acquitting respondents from charges
under sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
2. Informant PW1 Vatchalabai lodged complaint Exh.81
alleging that on the night of 24.12.2008 respondent accused no.2
Radhabai threw waste water in complainant's area. When
complainant went to question her about it, at that time, Radhabai,
Pandhari, Krushna and Prabhu initially abused her and thereafter
it is alleged that respondent Prabhu hit her with stick; Pandhari,
Krushna and Radhabai made her fall and gave kicks and fist blows.
When husband of complainant, namely Rangnath, one Subhash and
their son Dnyandeo came to separate, it is alleged that accused
beat them also. In the episode, complainant suffered head injury
and therefore, on her report, police registered crime bearing No.
120 of 2008 for offence punishable under sections 326, 325, 324,
323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they were made to face trial
vide R.C.C. No. 15 of 2009.
-3- Revn.367.2023
3. After appreciating the prosecution evidence, learned
J.M.F.C. Partur vide judgment and order dated 09.03.2020
acquitted accused from all charges.
Against acquittal complainant preferred Criminal
Appeal bearing No. 29 of 2020 before learned Additional Sessions
Judge-4, Jalna. After hearing both sides, learned first appellate
court confirmed the judgment and order passed by learned J.M.F.C.
in R.C.C. No. 15 of 2009 and dismissed the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal at the hands of both,
learned trial court as well as first appellate court, original
informant - complainant has preferred instant revision.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that, the
fundamental grounds raised in revision are that, both, learned trial
court as well as first appellate court failed to appreciate the oral
and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. Secondly,
evidence of prosecution witnesses was full-proof and had remained
intact and unshaken in spite of extensive cross on the point of
occurrence and assault. That, occurrence was proved through
complainant, her son and even through the evidence of Rangnath.
-4- Revn.367.2023
Their testimonies are unfortunately disbelieved. That, there were
injuries on the person of complainant including fracture and
medical expert was also examined by prosecution, but even such
overwhelming and corroborating evidence has not been
appreciated by learned trial Judge as well as first appellate court.
That, judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. That, there
is improper appreciation and non consideration of the settled legal
principles. According to learned counsel, required ingredients for
attracting the offence were very much available in the prosecution
evidence, but still accused are acquitted without assigning sound
reasons for disbelieving their evidence. Hence, learned counsel
seeks indulgence at the hands of this court by allowing the
revision.
5. In answer to above, learned APP and learned counsel
for respondent Nos.2 to 4 while supporting the judgments of both,
learned trial court as well as first appellate court, would submit
that, prosecution has miserably failed to adduce convincing and
independent evidence. That, there is false implication. That,
witnesses are inconsistent and their testimonies are full of
material omissions, contradictions and exaggeration. That, medical
evidence also does not support informant's version. That, there
was delayed reporting. That, seizures were not promptly
-5- Revn.367.2023
dispatched to analyzer. It is pointed out that, none of the pancha
witnesses have supported and therefore learned counsel canvasses
in the favour of findings reached at by both, learned trial court as
well as first appellate court and prays to dismiss the revision for
want of merits.
6. After hearing submissions of each of the side and on re-
appreciating the evidence and papers on record, it is emerging
that, R.C.C. No.15 of 2009 was in consequence to crime registered
by PW1 Vatchalabai. Papers show that, in support of it, apart from
documentary evidence, prosecution has adduced in all 9 witnesses.
Crucial evidence is of PW1 Vatchalabai, PW2 Rangnath, PW3
Dnyandeo and PW6 Dr. Dnyandeo Nawal, a Medical Officer. PW4
Babu and PW5 Datta seem to be panchas, PW8 is a witness,
whereas rest of the witnesses seem to be police personnel.
ANALYSIS
7. Reanalyzed the evidence of PW1 complainant, PW2
Rangnath and PW3 Dnyandeo, who are examined at Exh.80, 84
and 105 respectively. Substance of accusation of informant is that
on the night of 24.12.2008 around 8:30 p.m., accused Radhabai
threw waste water in her premises and therefore she went to
question it and thereafter it is alleged that she was initially abused
by all three accused and she was hit by means of stick by accused
no.3 son of accused no.1, causing her head injury.
-6- Revn.367.2023
8. Evidence of PW1 complainant, PW2 Rangnath and PW3
Dnyandeo is consistent only about occurrence taking place on the
night of 24.12.2008. However, on minute scrutiny it does emerge
that witnesses are not consistent and lending support to each other
on events that took place. According to informant, she alone went
to question with accused no.2 Radhabai. However, contrary to it,
PW2 Rangnath her husband claims that he also went along with
her. As pointed out, what were the abuses, has not been narrated
by any of the witnesses. Though complainant claims that she
suffered head injury, regarding it FIR shows insertion by way of
ink of which Investigating Officer could not offer any explanation.
PSO, who noted report is not examined to prove the subsequent
insertion. Therefore, there is force in the submissions that contents
of FIR are interpolated and exaggerated. Surprisingly, further
evidence of very son of informant and PW2 seems to be full of
material omissions. PW2 Rangnath himself testified and admitted
that his statement was not recorded by police.
9. Medical evidence PW6 Dr. Dnyandeo though deposed
about noticing fracture, however, he has in his evidence admitted
regarding not carrying x-ray report which was essential for
drawing inference of causing grievous injury. Moreover,
-7- Revn.367.2023
subsequently, x-ray report has been brought on record and its
source is not demonstrated. Medical expert has admitted injury on
the informant to be possible on account of fall. Panchas to spot
have not supported. Articles though shown to be seized during
investigation were shown to be produced after four years of the
occurrence creating doubt about the very seizure. Presence of
husband PW2 Rangnath and son PW3 Dnyandeo also comes under
shadow of doubt. In spite of availability of neighbourhood to the
house of informant as well as house of accused, there is no
independent witness. Though law does not require corroboration
through only independent witness, still evidence of prosecution
witnesses, who are family members, should at least be consistent
and lending support to each other. Above discussion shows that,
statement of PW2 Rangnath was not recorded. Evidence of PW3
Dnyandeo carries material omissions and therefore, finding
prosecution evidence to be weak, initially learned trial court did
not accept the prosecution case.
10. On re-appreciation, even first appellate court found no
fault or perversity in the manner of appreciation at the hands of
learned trial court.
11. Here also, in revision, no infirmity or perversity, which
-8- Revn.367.2023
is so patent and which has not been appreciated, is brought to the
notice so as to interfere in the view taken by both, learned trial
court as well as first appellate court. Evidence of prosecution being
weak and fragile, both learned courts below rightly refused to
accept the same.
12. For above reasons, no case being made out in revision,
the same is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
