In an application for leave to prefer an appeal against an acquittal in a case under the SC/ST Act, the High Court noted the trial judge found major evidence gaps. The Court held the acquittal was a possible view and no perversity was found, dismissing the application.
Application for leave to file appeal stands refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2066/2010
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
APPLICANT.
V E R S U S
BALAJI S/O BRAHMAJI GUNDE AND OTHERS.
RESPONDENTS.
Shri B.J. SONWANE, A.P.P. Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2010.
PER COURT :
seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal
dated 8.2.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar
in Special (Attro) Case No.2/2007 acquitting the respondents/original
accused for the offence p/u/s 3 (i) (1) (x) of SC/ST ( Prevention of
2
Atrocities ) Act and also acquitting him for the offence p/u/s 323, 504, 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code.
3
certificate of the complainant namely Dhondyabai on record since it was not available, but produced certificate of her husband and therefore, apparently in view of said lacuna, provisions of SC/ST act would not be attracted in respect of the alleged occurrence of the incident.
learned trial judge has observed that PW 2 Shivaji son of the complainant, who came at the place of incident later on and therefore,
it is clear that he himself has not heard the alleged abuses. Hence, said evidence of PW 2 Shivaji cannot be of any use to the case of prosecution. As regards PW 3 Ananda, another son of the complainant
it is admitted that he is not eye witness to the occurrence of the incident, since he was not present at the place of incident. As regards, panchnama, learned trial judge has observed that prosecution has not examined Dharoba Padmaji Gundhe. The evidence of PW 7 Mr. Bhise about recording of panchnama has not been corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 Kondiba Kamaji Ambate.
4
evidence that in medical examination of the complainant, PW 4 Dr. Damodhar Vayegaonkar found abrasion on the front side of the forehead admeasuring 1 x 1 x 1cm and also found abrasion on right forearm admeasuring 2 x 2 x 3 cms. Hence, learned trial judge observed that evidence of Dhondyabai complainant about injury to the shoulder and back has not been corroborated by oral evidence of PW 4 Dr. Damodhar and medical certificate Exh.22. PW 4 Dr. Damodhar also admitted in the cross examination that medical certificate did not bear the time of the medical examination as well as he has not mentioned that injuries were caused within 24 hours. Hence, learned trial judge has observed that there is no oral and documentary evidence about time of medical examination and ultimately learned trial judge has not believed medical certificate Exh.22.
5
and hence, the view adopted by the learned trial judge is a possible
view to be adopted, after considering the evidence on record and no perversity is found therein. Moreover, the reasoning given by the learned trial judge for acquitting the accused persons, also appears to
be proper and same cannot be faulted with, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected.
rejected and leave to file appeal stands refused.
court.
aaa/2066.10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal of persons charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence?
Whether the learned trial judge's reason for not believing the medical certificate and witnesses regarding injuries was perversely arrived at?
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
BALAJI S/O BRAHMAJI GUNDE AND OTHERS
SHRIHARI P. DAVARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
