Criminal Appeal by the State against acquittal in Sessions Case No. 186/1996. The bench found no credible evidence proving accused guilt based on inconsistencies in medical and prosecution testimony, dismissing the appeal.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal order stands affirmed.
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.
Cri.Appeal 653/2003
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.653 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra Through Naldurg Police Station, District Osmanabad = APPELLANT (Orig.Applicant)
VERSUS
Mr. S.M.Ganachari, APP for Appellant-State;
Mr.S.A.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents(absent)
CORAM : SUNIL P.DESHMUKH & P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : 2nd February, 2018.
JUDGMENT :- (PER P.R.BORA,J.)
2 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
No.186 of 1996 is challenged by the State in the present appeal.
referred to as accused Nos.1 to 3, were prosecuted in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The incident, which gave rise for initiation of prosecution against the accused, happened on 15th May, 1995 at Naldurg. As is revealing from the case of prosecution, Kashinath Reku Pawar, lodged FIR against four persons, viz. Jagdish Ram Banjare, Yuvraj Parasram Rathod; Raju Tukaram Rathod and Ashok Ram Banjare in Police Station Naldurg, alleging that the aforesaid persons had entered into quarrel with him and made assaults on him with an axe as well as stone and severely injured him.
3 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
investigation in the said crime, charge sheet came to be filed only against present three respondents-accused in the court of JMFC at Naldurg for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 read with 34 of IPC. It has to be stated that arising out of the same incident allegedly happened on 15th May, 1995, another complaint was already filed by Yuvraj Parasram Rathod – accused No.1 in the present case against Kashinath, i.e. informant in the present case and Babu Reku Pawar; Uttam Hira Jadhav and Rekhu Gangaram Pawar. In the said complaint lodged by Yuvraj, it was alleged that Kashinath and other accused named in the said complaint made assault on Jagdish Ram Banjare with a wooden log; tommy and axe, making him severely injured and the injuries caused to Jagdish in the assault so made on him by Kashinath and others, has resulted in causing his death. On the report so lodged by Yuvraj, crime was registered against Kashinath Reku Pawar; Babu Reku Pawar; Uttam Hira Jadhav and Rekhu Gangaram Pawar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read 34 of IPC in the court of JMFC at Naldurg. However, since the offence under Section 302 of
4 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the aforesaid criminal case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Osmanabad and was registered as Sessions Case No.140/1996. The offence registered on the complaint of Kashinath Reku Pawar was arising out of the said incident. In other words, since there were crosscomplaints which have resulted in registration of Crime against each other, an application was moved to the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad for trying both the aforesaid cases arising out of the one incident by the learned Sessions Judge to whom Sessions Case No.140/1996 was assigned for trial. The learned Sessions Judge Osmanabad, vide order passed on 18.11.1996, issued necessary directions for clubbing these matters and in pursuance of the said order, the JMFC, Naldurg committed the criminal case filed by Kashinath Reku Pawar also to the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Sessions Case No. 186/1996.
5 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
framed the charge against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with 34 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
6
Cri.Appeal 653/2003
witness examined by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence was concluded with the testimony of Mahadev Hande, who had done part of the investigation in the matter. The defense of the accused was of total denial.
7 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
witnesses; recovery of weapons and the medical evidence. Taking us through the evidence of PW 1- Dr. Vyankatesh Mule and PW 2 – Kashinath, the learned APP submitted that the facts, as were deposed by informant Kashinath, have been duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record. It was also contended by the learned APP that the eye-witnesses did also fully corroborate the version of the complainant Kashinath. In such circumstances, according to the learned APP, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
must have held all the accused guilty for the offences charged against them. The learned APP further submitted that the acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is unmeritorious. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and consequently to hold the accused persons guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with 34 of IPC and to award them adequate punishment.
by learned APP and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, apparently it is revealed that
8 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
no such credible evidence had come on record so as to prove the complicity of the accused in commission of the alleged crime. As noted herein above, the entire thrust of the prosecution was on the evidence of PW 2 – Kashinath and PW 1 – Dr. Vyankatesh Mule. It has to be stated that in the cross-complaint filed against the present accused, which was registered as Sessions Case No.140/1996, it was the specific defense of the accused therein that the present accused had initiated the quarrel and had made
severe assaults on Jagdish Ram Banjare, because of which, he ultimately suffered death. In the present case informant Kashinath deposed before the Court that Yuvraj, when was attempting to give second blow with the help of the axe on him, he slightly moved aside and avoided the said blow, but then the said blow with the axe was suffered by Jagdish and that ultimately became cause of his death. As has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the fact so stated by PW 2 – Kashinath was the most material fact and as such, it must have been existed in the FIR also. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the FIR at
9 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
Exh. 42 does not contain any such fact which creates serious doubts about the facts stated by PW 2 – Kashinath in his testimony before the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the FIR was lodged first by the rival group against informant Kashinath and thereafter Kashinath lodged the report against the present accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that there was reason to believe that just to give counter-blast to the FIR registered against him, Kashinath also did file the report against Jagdish Ram Banjare and others.
10 Cri.Appeal 653/2003
Jamadar as its witness. Subhash Patil though was examined as PW 4, his evidence has not been believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In Para 19 of the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed the evidence of PW – 4 Subhash Patil. It does not appear to us that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed any error in not relying on the evidence of PW 4 - Subhash Patil having regard to the fact that the evidence of Subhash Patil was inconsistent with the evidence of another witnesses and more particularly PW 2 – Kashinath.
11
Cri.Appeal 653/2003
injured and ultimately suffered the death.
Cri.Appeal 653/2003
12
between the two groups, one group comprising of the accused in Sessions Case No.140/1996 and the other, comprising of the accused in Sessions Case No.186/1996
and no such evidence had come on record in both the Sessions Cases so as to hold the accused persons in the respective Sessions Cases guilty for the offences with which they were charged in the respective Sessions Cases.
(P.R.BORA) (SUNIL P.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE
(SUNIL P.DESHMUKH)
bdv/
fldr 3.2.18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Sessions Judge committed any error in law or in evidence in acquitting the accused.
Whether the prosecution evidence established complicity of the accused in the alleged crime.
Whether the impugned judgment requires any interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra Through Naldurg Police Station
Yuvraj Parasram Rathod
Raju Tukaram Rathod
Ashok Ram Banjare
Sunil P. Deshmukh
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court