1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Appeal [APPA] No. 346 of 2011 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Kisnaji Dhobe and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. V. A. Thakre, APP for the State/Appellant. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATE : 24 th June, 2011. Heard learned APP for the State/appellant. The judgment and order of acquittal, dated 28/02/2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, is being impugned in this appeal. The incident occurred on 18/07/2008 in village Deulgaon, Tahsil Seloo, District Wardha. At about 5:00 p.m., the complainant Shalik and his father Sitaram were proceeding by the road. On the way, there is a house of accused persons. While the complainant and his father were passing by the road, the accused picked up quarrel by abusing the complainant and his father on the basis of caste. Thereafter, both the accused assaulted the complainant and his father with stick and iron rod. On the basis of F.I.R. lodged by them, offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 2 The prosecution examined twelve witnesses. After considering the evidence brought on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused and acquitted them of the offences with which they were charged. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge committed error in acquitting the accused without considering the testimonies of both the injured witnesses, which are corroborated by the medical evidence. He, therefore, contended that this is a fit case to grant leave to file an appeal. During course of recording of evidence, it was transpired that the accused Bharat had also sustained injury. Perusal of deposition of the Investigating Officer points out that on 29/07/2008, the accused no. 1 Bharat was discharged from the hospital and thereafter he was taken in custody. In the deposition of the Sitaram [PW-3] and complainant Shalik [PW-4], there is no whisper as to under what circumstances the injuries came on the persons of the accused. Shalik [PW-4] admitted in his cross- examination that the accused had made complaint against them as they had sustained injuries and for that the case is pending in the Court at Seloo. That being so, learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in expressing the doubt about the prosecution case. In paragraph no. 16 of the judgment, it is observed that, 'At least prosecution was duty bound to explain the injuries on the persons of accused no. 1 Bharat Dhobe and his son Aakash Dhobe. But, not only the victims but also none of the other witnesses of prosecution deposed that any of the victims beat accused or Aakash Dhobe in their defence. Therefore, non examination of the injuries on the person of accused, proved to 3 be fatal for the prosecution. This aspect further clarify that prosecution is not fair to bring true fact before the Court. Therefore it can not be ruled out that complainant and his associates are the aggressors and therefore they tried to hide such facts'. As regards to the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, learned Additional Sessions Judge considered admissions given by the complainant Shalik [PW-4] in his cross-examination. Even apart, these allegations are based on oral evidence. The major part of the prosecution case being found doubtful, this part of the prosecution case also becomes doubtful. Thus, on careful consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in my view interference in the order of acquittal is not justified. The application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed. JUDGE *Sdw