1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRI. REVN. APPLN. NO.: 161 OF 2008 Ramrao Dhondiba Kadam Versus State of Maharashtra and others *** Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. Counsel for the applicant absent. Acquittal for offence under section 307, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. dated 10th April, 2008 is subject of criticism. Kept back, as counsel for the complainant is absent. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] 2. The matter is now again called. Counsel absent. 3. Rule. Heard finally. Perused the judgment under challenge. 4. The facts are as under: 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. On 1st December, 2006 Ramrao Dhondiba Kadam lodged complaint at Civil Hospital Police Chouki, Parbhani that there was a quarrel two three years earlier between him and accused Dattarao. Dattarao was under custody and was facing trial. Said Dattarao used to threaten him now and then to compound the matter. He informed, on 30th November, 2006, said Dattarao and others started beating his wife. The complainant rushed. He witnessed that Dattarao and three others were mercilessly beating his wife Shobhabai and his son Deodas. Dattarao was armed with an axe. The complainant also suffered blow of butt of the axe due to which he too sustained injury, incident was witnessed by others. Based on said statement, crime was registered for an offence under section 307, 324, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. After charge, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 Ramrao - complainant, P.W.2 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Shobha - injured, P.W.4 Deodas is son of Ramrao and Shobha, P.W.3 is the Police Officer who recorded initial report Exhibit-16, P.W.5 is Kerba, one of the Panch witness about the spot (Exhibit-22), P.W.6 Dnyandeo has allegedly witnessed seizure of the stick and incriminating articles (Exhibit-24), P.W.7 Shaker-ul-kareem is Medical Officer who examined P.W.1 to 4 on 30th November, 2006 and the injury certificates [Exhibit-28 to 30 were produced]. P.W.8 is the Police Inspector who carried investigation. After the evidence, statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused came to be recorded. 5. The center point in the matter was, the earlier prosecution pending before J.M.F.C. in the form of S.C.C. 1772 of 2005. It is pertinent said prosecution has terminated in acquittal and it was at-least prior to 30th November, 2006. It follows, there was no reason or occasion for the accused to plead mercy and intercede. 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 6. The other aspect noticed by the learned Judge was, the nature of injuries allegedly suffered by Shobhabai or her son. Though it was a case of assault by handle of the axe, however, medical officer and the witnesses have informed that during the course of investigation use of axe was not at all put on acceleration. 7. If the axe was allegedly snatched or taken control by either Shobhabai or her son from the accused, it was expected of them to produce the same before I.O. P.W.8. However, there is no such seizure of the axe. 8. The bloodstained apparels of the injured are not taken charge by P.W.8 G.R.Fasle. It is not known as to why he did not collect such bloodstained apparels. . The learned Judge has observed, if the spot of incident is taken into consideration the outsiders would have rushed to intervene, however, nobody has 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. come forward though it was canvassed by Shobha that one Kalubai Bapurao and Vijay Nanduram Kadam had rushed and rescued her. These two vital piece of evidence is not before the Court. P.W.2 Shobhabai had exaggerated the nature of injuries going to the extent saying that there was oozing of blood from the injury and it even had its traces to the ground. However, nothing of this sort was found in the Panchanama or the said so by any independent person. 9. The observations of the learned Judge accepting the suggestion by the defence that the injuries suffered by Ramrao, his wife Shobhabai and son Devdas could be sustained because of their bullock cart had toppled while they were returning to house in the evening from field was a possible defence. Taking survey of these facts, the observation of the learned Judge in acquitting the accused, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. record, it is in tune with the available record. The acquittal does not require any interference. Criminal Revision Application dismissed. Rule discharged. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:28/08/2009. ans/161