1412appa763.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 763 OF 2011 (The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ajit Shrinivas Bhalerao) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.. M. Kale, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER, 14 , 2011 . 1. The appellant-State is seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30/7/2011 passed by the Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldhana (under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act) in Spl. Atro. Case No. 9/2008. 2. The complainant is Gram Sevak and at the relevant time was posted at Grampanchayat, Bhadola, taluka and district Buldana. The incident occurred on 04/9/2006. It is alleged that the accused had entered the office of Gram Panchayat and asked for copies of the resolution and thereafter assaulted the complainant. The accused also insulted the complainant by abusing in the name of his caste. 3. The prosecution examined five witnesses. 1412appa763.11.odt 2/3 After considering the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held that the offence complained of has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, he, therefore, proceeded to acquit him. 4. Heard the learned A.P.P., perused the judgment impugned in this appeal and the copies of the depositions of the witnesses recorded in the case. It was found that the accused had lodged complaint against the complainant to his superiors and on that basis enquiry was initiated. Therefore, this was the case of previous enmity. In para 15 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge observed thus: “...From the above admitted facts by the informant, in his cross-examination clearly indicate that though, the accused from time to time demanded copies of resolution to the informant, the informant denied to deliver the copies and due to which the accused made complaint against the informant to his superior authorities. After the directions given by the superior authority to the informant, then he issued copies of resolution to the accused. This conduct of the informant without any sufficient cause not delivering the copies of resolutions to the accused of a public document, itself shows that the nature of the informant was troublesome with the accused 1412appa763.11.odt 3/3 and ill intention against him...” 5. P.W.-3 Uttam Ingle, who is peon in the office of Gram Panchayat, did not support the prosecution case on material particulars. According to him, there was hot discussion between the accused and the complainant. Both were hurling abuses at each other. What he alleged against the accused is that only some papers were torn by the accused. He did not whisper about hurling of abuses by the accused in the name of caste nor whispered that the accused assaulted the complainant. P.W.-2 Sk. Salim, who is Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, had also grudge against the complainant since against him also a complaint was filed by the accused. 6. For all these reasons, the learned Sessions Judge did not believe the prosecution case. In that light of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse or against the evidence on record. 7. Leave refused. JUDGE wwl