1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Versus Bhimrao Dnyanu Madane ...Respondent Dr. F.R. Shaikh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant Mr. Arfan Sait (appointed) for the Respondent. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 4, 2009 P.C.:- Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. 3. The respondent-accused was tried for offences under Sections 326, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in 2 Criminal Case No. 21 of 2003. After the full-fledged trial, he has been acquitted, and the State filed this appeal for convicting and sentencing the accused according to law. 4. The prosecution story was that the respondent suspected the character of his wife, as his wife was often going to her parents’ house, and, therefore, on a day, when she had returned from her parents’ house, he attacked her in the evening with an axe and caused grievous injuries to her. The wife had stated that on 3rd January, 2003, after taking meals at 10.00 p.m., the accused did not allow her to sleep and asked her “whether I dislike you?”, “why you often go to your parents’ house?”, “whether you have illicit relations with anybody in your parents’ village?” Thereafter, he attacked her with an axe. 5. The recovery of the axe was not proved, according to the learned Sessions Judge, as the witnesses, who were witnesses to the disclosure and recovery of the axe, were not produced. Similarly, the alleged blood-stained cloths of the lady were also not proved, because the witnesses, who were witnesses to such seizure, 3 were also not produced. The doctor, who was produced, did not certify as to whether the injuries inflicted on the wife of the accused were grievous or not. It was the case of the prosecution that after, initially, having been examined by P.W. 7, the victim had remained in a private hospital, viz., Sanjivani Hospital, for 9 days, and there, she was treated by Surgeon, Dr. Kadam. Dr. Kadam was not produced as a witness, nor any records of Sanjivani Hospital were produced. P.W. 7, who was produced as a witness, submitted that the injuries he had found could have been caused by a blunt weapon, whereas the case of the prosecution was that those injuries were caused by an axe. For these reasons, we do not find that the judgment of the trial Court can be interfered with. 6. This case, again, reflects on the sorry state of affairs in which the present Criminal Judicial System is finding itself in. This accused was facing trial, and in trial, he remained in jail for about 8 months. Thereafter, this appeal was filed, and the Court issued process. The respondent was asked to give a bond. Action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code was 4 initiated, but it appears that the respondent could not give bond to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and, therefore, is still languishing in jail. Even after his acquittal, the respondent has remained in jail for a period exceeding 5 years because of pendency of appeal against his acquittal. This, obviously, is shameful for the whole system. 7. While dismissing this appeal, we direct the State to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the respondent. The authorities are directed to forthwith release the respondent, Bhimrao Dnyanu Madane, from custody. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.