1 Cri.Appeal No.249 of 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 249 OF 1995 WITH CRIMINAL REV. APPLICATION NO.189 OF 1995 (1) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.249 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ..APPELLANT (Ori. Complainant) VERSUS 1. Narayan s/o Hiraman Kamble, age 35 yrs., occu.Agril, r/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed District Parbhani 2. Daulat s/o Ginyandeo Jadhav, aged 35 yrs., occu.Agril., r/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani 3. Sopan s/o Ginyandeo Jadhav, aged 41 years, occu. service, r/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. G'khed, District Parbhani 4. Tukaram Dnyanoba Jadhav, aged 32 years, occu.Agril., r/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani 5. Sitaram s/o Nagorao Kamble, aged 42 yrs., occu.Agril, r/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani 2 Cri.Appeal No.249 of 1995 6. Manohar Dnyanoba Jadhav, aged 22 yrs., occu.Agril., r/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani 7. Madhukar s/o Sopan Jadhav, aged 20 yrs., occu.Agril., r/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani ..RESPONDENTS (Ori. Accused) Mr K.G. Patil, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State; Mr Pravin G. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr G. N. Patil for the respondents 2) CRIMINAL REV. APPLICATION NO.189 OF 1995 Sadashiv s/o Narayan Jadhav, Age-Adult, occ.Agri., R/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani ..PETITIONER (Original Complainant) VERSUS 1. Narayan s/o Hiraman Kamble, Age - 35 years, Occu.Agril, R/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani 2. Daulat s/o Ginyandeo Jadhav, Age-35 years, Occu.Agri., R/o Mairal Sawangi, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani 3. Sopan s/o Ginyandeo Jadhav, Age -41 years, occu. and R/o as above 4. Tukaram Dnyanoba Jadhav, Age-32 years, Occu. and R/o as above 3 Cri.Appeal No.249 of 1995 5. Sitaram s/o Nagorao Kamble, Age-42 years, occu.Agri., R/o as above 6. Manohar s/o Dnyanoba Jadhav, Age-22 years, occu. and r/o as above 7. Madhukar s/o Sopan Jadhav, Age-20 years, occu. and R/o as above 8. The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS (Respdt Nos.1 to 7 - orig. accused) Mr R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr Pravin G. Patil, advocate holding for Mr G. N. Patil for respondents no.1 to 7; Mr K.G. Patil, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.8 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 120th January, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) The State has filed the appeal challenging the judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 4th May, 1995, in Sessions Trial No.18/1990, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under section 147, 148, 149 and 307 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the prosecution had examined only two witnesses, 4 Cri.Appeal No.249 of 1995 namely P.W.1 Sadashiv and P.W.2 Madhukar. The Trial Court vide Exh.5 had framed charge against the respondents/accused for offence punishable under section 147, 148 and 307 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having attempted to commit murder of Bhagoji Narayan Jadhav. 3. P.W.1 Sadashiv states that Bhagoji is his brother and he knows all the accused. He admits about a dispute between him and the accused on account of the agricultural land. He states that on the day of the incident, at about 7.00 p.m. Bhagoji was coming from his field towards his house. The accused obstructed Bhagoji and asked him to withdraw the case instituted by him, otherwise they will kill him. P.W.1 Sadashiv states that he was at some distance and on hearing the shouts of cries of his brother he rushed towards the scene. Thereafter Madhukar, Bhanudas, Vaijanath, Babasaheb and others arrived there. Seeing all these persons the accused fled from the spot. Bhagoji was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. Bhagoji was removed to the Gangakhed hospital and thereafter to the hospital at Parbhani. P.W.1 Sadashiv lodged his report at Exh.29. In cross-examination he has admitted that since last four years prior to the incident there were disputes in between him and the accused. He has admitted that the police had initiated preventive action under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of the threats. He has admitted to have lodged a complaint against the accused in respect of assault on him and the case which was 5 Cri.Appeal No.249 of 1995 pending in the Gangakhed Court ended in acquittal of the accused. He has also admitted that one Prayagbai, wife of accused no.1, had lodged a report against him and his brother Bhagoji and others that they had outraged her modesty. Sadashiv has also admitted that he was along with others was prosecuted under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He has admitted that he was standing outside his house and on hearing the cries of his brother, he had rushed to the scene. He has admitted that he was standing at a distance of 500 ft. from the scene of the offence. He states when he reached the scene of the offence he has seen his brother lying on the road with injuries. 4. P.W.2 Madhukar states that injured Bhagoji is his uncle and he was at his home on the day of the incident. On hearing the commotion he had rushed to the scene and had seen the accused assaulting Bhagoji. He states that Bhagoji was rendered unconscious and thereafter he carried Bhagoji to the hospital. In cross-examination he states that within five minutes he reached the scene of the offence and on reaching the scene of the offence he had seen Bhagoji lying on the road in front of the house of Narayan. He states that on seeing that Bhagoji was unconscious he returned to his house and informed his father and thereafter returned to the scene in a bullock-cart. 6 Cri.Appeal No.249 of 1995 5. P.W.2 Madhukar does not refer to the presence of P.W.1 Sadashiv at all at the scene of the offence. P.W.1 Sadashiv states that Madhukar had arrived subsequently. Prosecution has not examined Bhagoji nor has the prosecution examined Medical Officer or the Investigating Officer. In the absence of the evidence of Bhagoji in respect of the injuries sustained by him and the evidence of the Medical Officer, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused as the evidence of P.W.1 Sadashiv and P.W.2 Madhukar, which not only does not inspire confidence of the Court but does not establish any offence. It is clear to us that upon hearing the cries of P.W.2 Madhukar had reached the scene of the offence and had only noticed Bhagoji lying with injuries on the road. Obviously, he had not seen the accused inflicting any injuries to Bhagoji. Thus, the evidence is woefully short of proving the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6. We have heard the learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel representing the original complainant and the learned Counsel for the accused. Upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses and the findings recorded by the Court, according to us the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any infirmity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. In that light of the matter, 7 Cri.Appeal No.249 of 1995 therefore, there being no merit, Criminal Appeal filed by the State is dismissed as also the Criminal Revision Application, confirming the acquittal of the respondents. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/cria249.95