1 Cri. Appln. No.1677/2011 fmp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1677 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Malikarjun Ramrao Bulbule & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for applicant Shri R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 22nd September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused the application and record. 2. State is seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order, acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1954, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.01/2010, delivered by the 2 Cri. Appln. No.1677/2011 fmp learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Latur on 13.1.2011. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, some time between 8.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on 22.10.2009, the respondent/ accused No.1 Mallikarjun Ramrao Bulbule, respondent/ accused No.2 Shivaji Ramrao Bulbule and respondent/ accused No.5 Santosh Mallikarjun Bulbule, the local residents, entered the house of the complainant Nirmala Gaikwad, made enquiries about her son Avinash and thereafter assaulted them. It is also the case of the prosecution that, caste-abusive language - “Mangache Lai Majle Ahet” was used by the accused and they were rescued by Deputy Sarpanch Shivaji Dagadu Bulbule. According to the prosecution, the second incident of similar kind occurred around 9.30 p.m. on the same day when the respondent/ accused No.3 Jailing Mallikarjun Bulbule and the respondent/ accused No.4 Ishwar Kerba Bulbule entered their house and gave abuses with reference to the caste of the complainant, and one Mahadu Dhage rescued them this time. 4. The complainant lodged the complaint with Gategaon Police Station on 24.10.2009 and Crime at C.R. No.80/2009 under Sections 143, 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the 3 Cri. Appln. No.1677/2011 fmp Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1954 came to be registered on that day. On completion of the investigation, the case was duly committed to the Court of Sessions, Latur and the charges under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1954 came to be framed vide charge at Exhibit 10. The accused pleaded not guilty, and in the trial that followed, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Anant Dhage, panch; P.W.2 Nirmala Gaikwad, the complainant; P.W.3 Sushilabai Gaikwad, sister-in-law of the complainant, P.W.4 Avinash Gaikwad, P.W.5 Shivaji Dagadu Bulbule and P.W.6 Shankar Mamilwad, investigating officer. 5. Learned trial Court, after hearing the rival parties and on consideration of the prosecution evidence, noticed political rivalry between the complainant and the panel of Sarpanch Shivaji Dagadu Bulbule and perceived the possibility of false implication in the case and, therefore, proceeded to acquit the accused for want of any independent evidence in corroboration of the prosecution case. Learned trial Court found the evidence inadequate to hold 4 Cri. Appln. No.1677/2011 fmp that the incident had occurred in public view, the material ingredient for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 6. Scene of offence panchanama Exhibit 28 and the oral evidence revealed a fact that the alleged incident had occurred within the confines of the residence of the complainant Nirmala Gaikwad, a place which was not open to the public view. Secondly, the complainant approached the police two days after the alleged incident. Her cross-examination reveals that she was elected as Grampanchayat Member in the elections of 2007 and she belonged to the political camp of Shivaji Dagadu Bulbule, Sarpanch. Her cross-examination also reveals that her village Samangaon, where she resided, was situated at 2 Kms. distance from Gategaon and vehicles were available even in the evening time for reaching the police station on the day of incident. There is nothing in the evidence, therefore, to suggest that she could not muster courage for or was prevented from approaching the police promptly after the incident. Her evidence also smacks of political rivalry between herself and the accuseds’ group. In such circumstances, it was all the more essential that her evidence and evidence of her relations – P.W.3 Sushilabai Gaikwad and P.W.4 Avinash Gaikwad was corroborated by an independent testimony or any other evidence. 5 Cri. Appln. No.1677/2011 fmp The only person other than her relations P.W.5 Shivaji Bulbule who could have perhaps lent corroboration to her testimony, turned hostile. In the given scenario, the findings of the learned trial Court cannot be faulted. 7. Leave is, therefore, refused. The application stands finally disposed off. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri1677.11