cra4730.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4730 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Nardana Police Station, Tq. & Dist-Dhule. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) Madhukar Hilal Jadhav, Age-51 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Vaghadi Kd. Tq-Shindkheda, Dist-Dhule and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for Applicant. None present for the Respondents. ... CORAM: SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 14TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. Wagh, learned A.P.P. for the Applicant. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 absent, although served. cra4730.11 2 2. This is an Application preferred by the Applicant - State seeking leave to file Appeal challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 30th July, 2010, rendered by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule in Sessions Case No.39 of 2008 thereby acquitting the Respondents (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3[1][10] of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. I have perused the impugned Judgment dated 30th July, 2010 and the Record and Proceedings, with the assistance of learned A.P.P. for the Applicant. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are as follows: . The complainant, who is PW-1, namely, Vinod cra4730.11 3 Kashinath Sandanshiv as well as eye witness PW-2 Bhika Shankar Pawar are the members of Scheduled Caste (Mahar), whereas the accused are members of "Mali" Caste. The complainant had a quarrel with one Ramdas, who was peon of Gram Panchayat, twice on 23rd February, 2008. It is alleged that on 23rd February, 2008 at about 7.30 p.m. the complainant and PW-2 had occupied seat in a Auto Rickshaw owned by Police Patil and two boys came there and gave message to the complainant that he was called before the members of committee meant for resolution of dispute amongst villagers. The complainant replied that he will come later on, thereafter the said boys left the spot. Soon after that accused No.1 Madhukar, accused No.2 Mahendra and accused No.3 Anil came there. They gave abuses to the complainant by quoting his caste. They also stated that complainant is the only member of Scheduled Caste/Mahar in the village and become over powered and they had a desire to see him. They not only gave the abuses but also gave fists cra4730.11 4 and kicks blows to the complainant on chest, stomach and then started dragging him towards Anganwadi. Other accused also joined them and committed alleged offences. The persons, Vithoba and Bhausaheb came there but they were also assaulted by the accused persons. The said incident was witnessed by Bhika, Sadashiv, Sunil. The complainant sustained invisible injuries. Somebody informed the incident to Police personnel and the complainant was also taken to the police station. He lodged complaint Exhibit 32 and accordingly Crime No.11 of 2008 was registered at Nardana Police Station. The prosecution examined as many as three witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, i.e. PW-1 Vinod Kashinath Sandanshiv, complainant, PW-2 Bhika Shankar Pawar and PW-3 Vijaykumar Chougule, Dy.S.P., Investigation Officer. 5. After scrutinizing and assessing the evidence, the learned trial Court has observed cra4730.11 5 that PW-1 and PW-2 are the interested witnesses and therefore they are bound to support each other, since they are members of one and same caste as well as they are friends of each other. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness, although the incident was witnessed by independent witnesses. Moreover the boys who had called the complainant to Anganwadi, were also not examined. Moreover several persons had seen the process of dragging the complainant by accused persons, but none of them has been examined by the prosecution, and apparently, the said observations of the learned trial Court, cannot be faulted with. 6. The learned trial Judge further observed that it has come on record that PW-2 Bhika Pawar, who was friend of the complainant Vinod Sandanshiv, has strained relations with accused due to political fraction. It has also come on record that both of them were from different cra4730.11 6 political groups and political group of PW-2 had lost Gram Panchayat election, and therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the accused have been implicated in the present case falsely with revengeful attitude. Having comprehensive view of the matter, apparently, there is no flaw in the said reasoning of the trial Court. Moreover, PW-3 Vijaykumar Chougule, Investigation Officer, had admitted that it transpired during the course of investigation that no such incident had taken place at the instance of accused and the case is altogether false and same is filed by PW-2 through PW-1, but he could not close the case since complaint was already filed. Hence the learned trial Judge rightly observed that said admission carries much importance and it shows how investigation is false. 7. Considering the totality of the evidence, it is apparent that the view adopted by the learned trial Court, after analyzing and cra4730.11 7 appreciating the evidence on record, while acquitting the accused persons, is a possible view to be adopted and same does not appear to be perverse and the reasons given therefor cannot be faulted with. Hence, present Application bears no substance and deserves to be dismissed, since no interference is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction. 8. In the result, present Criminal Application which is sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file Appeal is refused. 9. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] asb/JUNE11/cra4730.10