Criminal Application challenging acquittal under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. High Court considered evidence inconsistencies, delay in FIR, and lack of inquiry into caste status, refusing leave to appeal and upholding the Sessions Judge's order.
Leave to appeal is refused; application disposed of upholding the acquittal.
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.
als20.13.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013
The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. Versus Hemantkumar Gajanan Gharat. ... Respondent.
Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP for applicant-State.
Mr. S.P. Thorat, advocate for respondent.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE : JULY 15, 2013
P.C.:
1 This is an application seeking leave to appeal challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 16/12/2012 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 393 of 2009.
2 The case of the prosecution is that one Muthakki Roshayya Ramarao who was original resident of Andhra Pradesh and was working as Commissioner, Kokan Division, Navi Mumbai since 15/4/2002. He was also working at old Mantralaya in May, 2002.
Talwalkar
1/6
2 als20.13.sxw
According to Muthakki, he belongs to Madiga community which is a Schedule caste in Andhra Pradesh.
3 It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused i.e. the present respondent was well aware that the complainant Muthakki belonged to a Schedule caste. It is further alleged that the informant had sent a report to the Water Supply Department in Mantralaya in July, 2002. The report was such that the accused was aggrieved and had come to the office of informant and had ventilated his grievances. He had raised commotion. On 30th August, 2002 the time was scheduled for hearing the accused at Kokan Bhuvan. The accused came to the office and had threatened the office bearers that once he would receive the amount towards water supply, he would teach them lesson. The informant was abused by the accused. The accused had taken an advance of Rs. 37 Lakhs in 1992 from Zillah Parishad and had completed the work to the tune of Rs. 16 Lakhs only. He was to pay Rs. 21 Lakhs, but accused had issued a chque of Rs. 5 Lakhs, which was dishonoured. Hence, he was prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Officers of Zillah
Talwalkar
2/6
3 als20.13.sxw
Parishad and the Deputy Officers were suspended as they had extended excessive advance to the accused. The Government had issued a notification for escalation of the prices for water supply with retrospective effect from the year 1992 for making payment at the escalated rate. The accused had not used the tankers of the Zillah Parishad. Hence, he could not get benefit of the notification.
4 On 3rd January, 2004 the accused entered into the office of the informant and raised hue and cry. He abused the informant “ Tumhi Magas Jatiche Log Kadhich Sudharnar Nahit ”. The accused had allegedly abused the informant telephonically also. The son and daughter of the informant had received the said phone calls. On 13/1/2004 the accused had received letter making allegations of corruption against the informant. On 8th March, 2004 the accused had referred to the informant as a person with half brain, as a person having minimal sense of cognition and hence, the informant lodged a report, on the basis of which C.R. No. 18 of 2004 was registered against the accused under Section 310 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Talwalkar
3/6
4 als20.13.sxw
Atrocity) Act, 1989. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
5 P.W. 1 Muthakki Roshyya Ramarao is the informant. He has
deposed that the accused had come to his office and ventilated his grievance as the payment of Rs. 50 Lakhs was not made. In the cross-examination the complainant has admitted that he had not evicted the accused out of his chamber after he hurled abuses. He has also admitted that the accused had not abused him but had abused others. This by itself would show that the incident had occurred in the chamber and secondly, that no abuses were hurled towards informant. The informant has also admitted that there was a reference to the name of the accused in the Government resolution which was to give retrospective effect towards the escalation of prices and thereafter, the informant had issued a letter to Government regarding the recovery of Rs. 19 Lakhs from the accused. The informant has also admitted that earlier he had issued a letter regarding recovery of Rs. 21 Lakhs from the accused. The Government had directed the informant to take appropriate action and report. The Government had also issued
Talwalkar 4/6
5 als20.13.sxw
reminder to that effect. The Government had sought explanation from the informant about the allegations made by the accused. The complainant has shown ignorance about the fact that he had prepared note that he was filing complaint against the accused. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the accused had not made abuses in writing as was alleged in the complaint.
6 P.W. 3 Mahendra Kalantri has deposed before the Court that on 3/1/2004 he was waiting outside the Chamber of Ramarao. He had seen the accused entering into the chamber. The accused was shouting and thereafter, Ramarao had told the name of the accused as Hemant. By this, it can be inferred that the incident has not occurred in public view.
7 The Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has held that the letter at Exh. 13 was received by the informant and after 62 to 65 days, the complaint was lodged. The complainant has admitted that no abuses were levelled in the said letter. The Session Judge has rightly held that the complainant has not given any plausible
Talwalkar
5/6
6 als20.13.sxw
explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is rightly held that the prosecution has not enquired as to whether the accused was a member of schedule caste and schedule tribe. It is rightly held that there are inherent omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, which go to the root of the matter. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge do not call for any interference. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned the justifiable reasons for recording acquittal in favour of the respondent. Hence, the leave to appeal is refused. The application is disposed of.
Talwalkar 6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 310 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence warrant setting aside the impugned judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Hemantkumar Gajanan Gharat
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
