1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No.434/2011 ( State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, City Kotwali, Amravati ..Vs.. Aamrapali Vithalrao Shirsagar & another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.P.P. for applicant/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 22.7.2011. 1. This is an application under section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 1/3/2011, passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Amravati in Special Atrocity Case No.3/2010. 2. On 4/7/2009 one Yashwanta Ingole lodged F.I.R. in the police station City Kotwali, Amravati against the respondents 1 and 2. At the relevant time, the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 were serving as Staff Nurse and Ward Servant, respectively, in Irwin Hospital, Amravati. On 2/7/2009 at 7.30 p.m. the complainant went to ward no.7 of the Irwin Hospital, Amrvati and met the respondent no.2. He wanted to donate his eyes. Respondent no.2 asked him to meet respondent no.1 who was working as Staff Nurse. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 told him that he was suffering from A.I.D.S. and therefore, donation of his eyes cannot be accepted. The matter did not rest here. The complainant was abused and threatened on the basis of his caste. On 4/7/2009, the complainant learnt 2 that both the respondents spread a rumors that he was suffering from A.I.D.S. The complainant went to the respondents to confront them about their act of spreading rumors. At that time, the respondent no.1 abused him and respondent no.2 told him that since he belongs to Schedule Caste, they would not accept donation of his eyes. He, therefore, lodge F.I.R . On that basis, offence came to be registered. 3. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted before the Special Judge. During investigation it was revealed that the respondent no.1 herself belongs to Schedule Caste and therefore, she was not charged with the offence under Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, she was only charged with the offence punishable under sections 294 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent no.2 was charged with both the offences. 4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the respondents. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in his painstaking judgment analyzed in detail the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He identified number of discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On the basis of the evidence, he arrived at the conclusion that at the instigation of one Mahindra, false report has been lodged. Even on the touchstone of probability, the prosecution case appears to be unbelievable. The respondent no.1 was working as Staff Nurse and the respondent no.2 was working as Ward Servant. It is not understandable as to why leaving aside their own duties of looking after the patients they would indulge in altercation or indulge in abusing the complainant. 3 6. Learned A.P.P. has made available the copy of F.I.R for the perusal of this Court. It is just improbable to believe that both respondents would abuse the complainant in such language and also would threaten him that within a month he would be killed. The spot of incident is a place where presence of number of patients, doctors and staff members is expected. Just for a misbehaviour of the complainant, the respondents would have never abused him and that too in obscene and filthy language as well as would have never used the force by pushing him with stick. In fact, it was easy for them to get assistance of the Doctor, Watchman, Peons or to call police. It is also not understood as to why the complainant, who is a person of worldly knowledge, did not go to the Dean or the Hospital In-charge to lodge complaint against the respondents. Perusal of the complaint shows that the police did not accept his complaint and hence he went to the office of the Commissioner. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in his well reasoned order rightly disbelieved the prosecution case. In that light of the matter, no interference in the order of acquittal is warranted. 8. Leave refused. JUDGE Tambaskar.