1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.269 of 2008 (Tukaram Bhiku Pare Vs. The State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Ram.B.Deshpande, Adv., for the applicants. Mrs.B.R.Khekale, APP, for respondent State. Mr. A.K.Gawali, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:31/8/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the complainant. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Jamkhed, by his order dt.26.9.2008, in S.T.C.No.602/2005, acquitted the accused for an offense under Section 353 of IPC and same is subject of criticism in this revision application. 3. Counsel informs that the learned Judge dealing with the matter did not adhere that it was a 2 warrant case, he should not have tried it in summary form. The evidence, according to him, is not properly appreciated. The complainant was on duty and there are eye witnesses which the learned Judge should have believed, including the medical certificate of dislocation of tooth. 3. The case revolves to the fact that it was survey no.294 where the accused was grazing on the material date at around 5.35 p.m. when it was so noticed by the complainant in Arangaon Shivar. The prosecution has led no evidence to indicate that either the incident has taken place infront of survey No.294 or in survey no.294 or that survey no.294 belongs to the Government. 4. The other aspects noticed by the learned Judge and I find substance is the alleged eye witnesses are respectively sister in law and daughter. Manisha (PW 5) was barely 12 years at the material time while Sushila (PW 3) 3 is naturally associated with the complainant in his case. The Panch witnesses did not support prosecution. It was a case that in the melee, complainant suffered injury and there was dislocation of teeth. It naturally assumes importance, involving at least some bleeding or some pains to the complainant. The complainant did not advert to this effect at any place; he simply went home, without medical assistance and on the next day approached Police and then medical examination. 5. The assessment of the evidence by the learned Judge, negativing the contention for infraction of Section 353 of IPC cannot be said to be perverse. It is bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused has voluntarily caused hurt and person was public servant, who was assaulted and the public servant was discharging duty at the material time. The incident has happened at 5.30 p.m., as stated by the complainant, when he was 4 leaving for home. It appears, he may not be on duty at 5.30 p.m. as he was returning to home after duty. The observations require no interference. Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/269-08crra