IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.173 OF 1996 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.173 OF 1996 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.173 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant (Orig.Complainant) (Orig.Complainant) (Orig.Complainant) Versus Versus Versus 1. Anant Tukaram Dhangade & ors ..Respondents 1. Anant Tukaram Dhangade & ors ..Respondents 1. Anant Tukaram Dhangade & ors ..Respondents ---- ---- ---- Ms.M.H.Mhatre APP for State Ms.M.H.Mhatre APP for State Ms.M.H.Mhatre APP for State Mr.S.B.Shetye with Ms Deepti Wadkar for Respondent nos. Mr.S.B.Shetye with Ms Deepti Wadkar for Respondent nos. Mr.S.B.Shetye with Ms Deepti Wadkar for Respondent nos. 1 to 4. 1 to 4. 1 to 4. ---- ---- ---- CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J DATE : 26th November, 2007 DATE : 26th November, 2007 DATE : 26th November, 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra 1. This appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra 1. This appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra impugns the judgment and order passed by the Chief impugns the judgment and order passed by the Chief impugns the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri on 19th October, 1995 in Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri on 19th October, 1995 in Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri on 19th October, 1995 in Regular Criminal Case No. 317 of 1992 pertaining to Regular Criminal Case No. 317 of 1992 pertaining to Regular Criminal Case No. 317 of 1992 pertaining to offences under sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with offences under sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with offences under sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with section 34 IPC. I have perused the impugned judgment section 34 IPC. I have perused the impugned judgment section 34 IPC. I have perused the impugned judgment and the entire record and I find that the reasoning of and the entire record and I find that the reasoning of and the entire record and I find that the reasoning of the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or of a the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or of a the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or of a nature which requires interference in an appeal against nature which requires interference in an appeal against nature which requires interference in an appeal against acquittal. acquittal. acquittal. 2. The prosecution case was that on 16th October, 1992 2. The prosecution case was that on 16th October, 1992 2. The prosecution case was that on 16th October, 1992 an incident took place during the festival of Navratri an incident took place during the festival of Navratri an incident took place during the festival of Navratri when the present accused persons threatened PW 2 Nitin when the present accused persons threatened PW 2 Nitin when the present accused persons threatened PW 2 Nitin Lagade who is the injured in the present case. For Lagade who is the injured in the present case. For Lagade who is the injured in the present case. For : 2 : : 2 : : 2 : several days, Nitin was not going out of his house. He several days, Nitin was not going out of his house. He several days, Nitin was not going out of his house. He ventured out of the house on the date of the incident ventured out of the house on the date of the incident ventured out of the house on the date of the incident i.e. 16th October, 1992. On that date, the accused i.e. 16th October, 1992. On that date, the accused i.e. 16th October, 1992. On that date, the accused persons accosted him on the road. According to the persons accosted him on the road. According to the persons accosted him on the road. According to the first informant, Dipak who is real brother of Nitin and first informant, Dipak who is real brother of Nitin and first informant, Dipak who is real brother of Nitin and who claimed to be in the court-yard of the residential who claimed to be in the court-yard of the residential who claimed to be in the court-yard of the residential house of his father, when he he heard his brother Nitin house of his father, when he he heard his brother Nitin house of his father, when he he heard his brother Nitin shouting for help and running on the road. He went to shouting for help and running on the road. He went to shouting for help and running on the road. He went to help him. From a distance of about 10 feet he saw help him. From a distance of about 10 feet he saw help him. From a distance of about 10 feet he saw Nitin being beaten by the accused persons. Accused Nitin being beaten by the accused persons. Accused Nitin being beaten by the accused persons. Accused Balkrishna was having a pharashi Accused Umakant was Balkrishna was having a pharashi Accused Umakant was Balkrishna was having a pharashi Accused Umakant was having a koyati. Accused Prabhakar and Anant were having a koyati. Accused Prabhakar and Anant were having a koyati. Accused Prabhakar and Anant were having sticks. He saw Balkrishnag inflicting a blow of having sticks. He saw Balkrishnag inflicting a blow of having sticks. He saw Balkrishnag inflicting a blow of pharashi on the head of Nitin, Umakant inflicting blows pharashi on the head of Nitin, Umakant inflicting blows pharashi on the head of Nitin, Umakant inflicting blows with the help of a koyati on the eye brows, lips and with the help of a koyati on the eye brows, lips and with the help of a koyati on the eye brows, lips and hands of Nitin as a result of which the eye brows, lips hands of Nitin as a result of which the eye brows, lips hands of Nitin as a result of which the eye brows, lips and fingers were cut. He saw Prabhakar and Anant and fingers were cut. He saw Prabhakar and Anant and fingers were cut. He saw Prabhakar and Anant giving blows on Nitin on his legs and all over the body giving blows on Nitin on his legs and all over the body giving blows on Nitin on his legs and all over the body of the Nitin. According to the prosecution, the of the Nitin. According to the prosecution, the of the Nitin. According to the prosecution, the incident was also witnessed by PW 5 Nirmala Gurav who incident was also witnessed by PW 5 Nirmala Gurav who incident was also witnessed by PW 5 Nirmala Gurav who is the mother-in law of the first informant Dipak and is the mother-in law of the first informant Dipak and is the mother-in law of the first informant Dipak and PW 6 Vaijayanti Gurav who was wife of the PW 6 Vaijayanti Gurav who was wife of the PW 6 Vaijayanti Gurav who was wife of the brother-in-law of the complainant. The last witness brother-in-law of the complainant. The last witness brother-in-law of the complainant. The last witness was PW 7 Dipak who was the complainant. The was PW 7 Dipak who was the complainant. The was PW 7 Dipak who was the complainant. The prosecution did not examine any other independent prosecution did not examine any other independent prosecution did not examine any other independent witness and it is clear that all the witnesses examined witness and it is clear that all the witnesses examined witness and it is clear that all the witnesses examined were close relatives of the injured Nitin. were close relatives of the injured Nitin. were close relatives of the injured Nitin. 3. To prove the injuries on Nitin, the prosecution 3. To prove the injuries on Nitin, the prosecution 3. To prove the injuries on Nitin, the prosecution : 3 : : 3 : : 3 : examined PW 9 Dr.Moreshwar Dange. Dr.Dange found the examined PW 9 Dr.Moreshwar Dange. Dr.Dange found the examined PW 9 Dr.Moreshwar Dange. Dr.Dange found the following injuries on the person of Nitin : following injuries on the person of Nitin : following injuries on the person of Nitin : 1. Incised wound on left eye brow 3 cms x 3 cm 1. Incised wound on left eye brow 3 cms x 3 cm 1. Incised wound on left eye brow 3 cms x 3 cm skin deep; skin deep; skin deep; 2. Incised wound over left eye brow, 2 cms x 1 cm 2. Incised wound over left eye brow, 2 cms x 1 cm 2. Incised wound over left eye brow, 2 cms x 1 cm skin deep. skin deep. skin deep. 3. Incised wound on upper lip measuring 3 cms x 1 3. Incised wound on upper lip measuring 3 cms x 1 3. Incised wound on upper lip measuring 3 cms x 1 cm muscle deep. cm muscle deep. cm muscle deep. 4. Incised wound on lower lip, 3 cms x 2 cm. 4. Incised wound on lower lip, 3 cms x 2 cm. 4. Incised wound on lower lip, 3 cms x 2 cm. 5. Temporal haemotoma of left temporal region. 5. Temporal haemotoma of left temporal region. 5. Temporal haemotoma of left temporal region. Xray of skull A.P. and lateral was taken vide Xray of skull A.P. and lateral was taken vide Xray of skull A.P. and lateral was taken vide G.R.No. 2881/82. X-ray shows fracture of left G.R.No. 2881/82. X-ray shows fracture of left G.R.No. 2881/82. X-ray shows fracture of left temporal region. temporal region. temporal region. He opined that all the injuries found by him were He opined that all the injuries found by him were He opined that all the injuries found by him were due to sharp and hard object. due to sharp and hard object. due to sharp and hard object. 4. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that there are 4. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that there are 4. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that there are no injuries caused by sticks on the person of Nitin. no injuries caused by sticks on the person of Nitin. no injuries caused by sticks on the person of Nitin. Two incised injurys nos. 1 and 2 are only skin deep Two incised injurys nos. 1 and 2 are only skin deep Two incised injurys nos. 1 and 2 are only skin deep and there is considerable doubt as to whether it can be and there is considerable doubt as to whether it can be and there is considerable doubt as to whether it can be caused by axe/koyati as deposed to by the relatives of caused by axe/koyati as deposed to by the relatives of caused by axe/koyati as deposed to by the relatives of the injured. Injury no.3 is just on the lip and the injured. Injury no.3 is just on the lip and the injured. Injury no.3 is just on the lip and cuts cuts cuts muscle. The depth of injury no.4 is not given. It muscle. The depth of injury no.4 is not given. It muscle. The depth of injury no.4 is not given. It appears that fracture on the skull is the only serious appears that fracture on the skull is the only serious appears that fracture on the skull is the only serious injury. Even this injury according to the doctor, was injury. Even this injury according to the doctor, was injury. Even this injury according to the doctor, was due to sharp and hard object. In his evidence, it is due to sharp and hard object. In his evidence, it is due to sharp and hard object. In his evidence, it is not clearly brought out whether injury no.5 was caused not clearly brought out whether injury no.5 was caused not clearly brought out whether injury no.5 was caused due to a separate weapon or blow. The weapons which due to a separate weapon or blow. The weapons which due to a separate weapon or blow. The weapons which were used and which are said to have been seized were were used and which are said to have been seized were were used and which are said to have been seized were not shown to the doctor inorder to assert whether the not shown to the doctor inorder to assert whether the not shown to the doctor inorder to assert whether the : 4 : : 4 : : 4 : injuries could be caused by the weapons shown to have injuries could be caused by the weapons shown to have injuries could be caused by the weapons shown to have been seized. The weapons seized were not sent to the been seized. The weapons seized were not sent to the been seized. The weapons seized were not sent to the Chemcial Analyst for a report. Chemcial Analyst for a report. Chemcial Analyst for a report. 5. No doubt PW 5, 6,and 7 are Nirmala Gurav, 5. No doubt PW 5, 6,and 7 are Nirmala Gurav, 5. No doubt PW 5, 6,and 7 are Nirmala Gurav, Vaijayanti Gurav,Dipali Logade repeat the versions of Vaijayanti Gurav,Dipali Logade repeat the versions of Vaijayanti Gurav,Dipali Logade repeat the versions of Dipak but, their ocular evidence has the same lacunas Dipak but, their ocular evidence has the same lacunas Dipak but, their ocular evidence has the same lacunas as mentioned aforesaid when compared with the medical as mentioned aforesaid when compared with the medical as mentioned aforesaid when compared with the medical evidence. PW 2 Nitin Logade who was the injured evidence. PW 2 Nitin Logade who was the injured evidence. PW 2 Nitin Logade who was the injured witness was in Civil hospital, for two weeks and was witness was in Civil hospital, for two weeks and was witness was in Civil hospital, for two weeks and was thereafter taken to Bombay and was admitted in KEM thereafter taken to Bombay and was admitted in KEM thereafter taken to Bombay and was admitted in KEM Hospital for a week. His statement was recorded 15 Hospital for a week. His statement was recorded 15 Hospital for a week. His statement was recorded 15 days after the incident. It cannot be said that the days after the incident. It cannot be said that the days after the incident. It cannot be said that the view taken is not a possible view. The Court has given view taken is not a possible view. The Court has given view taken is not a possible view. The Court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused. In my view, this the benefit of doubt to the accused. In my view, this the benefit of doubt to the accused. In my view, this is not a fit case to interfere in an appeal against is not a fit case to interfere in an appeal against is not a fit case to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed. acquittal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed. acquittal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite, J) (R.S.Mohite, J) (R.S.Mohite, J) : 5 : : 5 : : 5 :