In Criminal Application No. 136 of 2012, the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench dismissed the applicant's application challenging the trial court's acquittal of offences under Sections 323, 379, and 506 IPC.
The criminal application was disposed of as rejected.
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.
1/3
2108appa136.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.136 OF 2012
(Mahendra s/o Premdasji Manwatkar vs. Raten s/o Champat Yesenkar) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri S.U. Bhuyar, Advocate for applicant. Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 21, 2012
Heard learned Counsel for both the parties at the admission stage.
This is a criminal application preferred by
the original complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29/12/2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pulgaon. By the said impugned judgment and order, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Counsel for the applicant states
2108appa136.12
2/3
that benefit of doubt was wrongly given by the trial Court in favour of the accused and that it was a case in which there were two eye witnesses to the incident of assault on the applicant, which occurred on 28/6/2003. Apparently, after the said assault, the complainant had visited the concerned Police Station. At the same time, he was referred to the Medical Officer. Instead of lodging any first information report, only action under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code was taken. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Investigating Officer, the complainant/present applicant preferred private complaint, but belatedly after about five months. This was the complaint finally heard and disposed of, which ended in acquittal.
What weighed with the trial Court was the substantive evidence of P.W. 2 Ritesh and P.W.3 Pawan – alleged eye witnesses. According to them, the complainant received external injury to his mouth due to fist and kick blows given by the respondent/accused. As against this, the medical evidence is negative regarding any external injury. The medical evidence by way of substantive
2108appa136.12
3/3
evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Achintalwar and record of injury by way of medical certificate show that there were only contusions on the face, hand and other parts of the body without there being any external injury. Thus, considering these discrepancies, the trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and acquitted him from the offences charged in the private complaint. There is nothing to interfere with the said judgment and order. Hence, criminal application is disposed of as stands rejected.
JUDGE
khj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of doubt was wrongly given by the trial court to acquit the accused.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal granted by the Judicial Magistrate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra s/o Premdasji Manwatkar
Raten s/o Champat Yesenkar
A.R. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
