1 APLN.1521-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1521 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. Versus Rajendra Sarjerao Thombre. .. Respondent. .... Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Ms.Rashmi Gangwani, Advocate i/b. Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Respondent. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28th APRIL, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for leave to appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra. 2. Present appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur. By the said impugned judgment and order, the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 of Indian Penal Code. 2 APLN.1521-10 3. The case of the prosecution appears to be that on 26th March, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. when the complainant had been to his agricultural field for giving drinking water to his sheep, the respondent/accused came there and started abusing the complainant in filthy language, so also started assaulting the complainant by means of a knife on his stomach and abdomen. Hearing the noise of the commotion, son and daughter­in­law of the complainant arrived on the spot and tried to intervene. However, the respondent/accused assaulted them. The son of the complainant was assaulted by means of knife, however, the assault on daughter­in­law was by means of fist and kick blows. After the accident, the complainant, his son and daughter­in­law were taken to hospital and were treated for the injuries. Thereafter, the complainant went to Shahupuri police station and lodged complaint. 4. Total six witnesses were examined before the trial Court. The admitted position that emerged out from the substantive evidence before the Court, is to the following effect :­ 3 APLN.1521-10 [i] No any independent witnesses were examined though the incident happened in the broad day light; [ii] Scene of offence panchnama was conducted on next day of the incident i.e. on 27th March, 2007 and one knife having blade length of 4 inches or 5 inches was seized from the spot. Said knife was not recovered at the instance of the respondent/accused; [iii] Panch to the scene of offence and recovery of knife did not support the prosecution inasmuch as he stated that he was asked to sign on prepared documents; [iv] There was no blood on the knife; [v] There is doubt as to exactly at what place the First Information Report was recorded by the police inasmuch as according to the complainant, he and his two other relatives, then injured, were first treated at the hospital and thereafter the complainant went to the police station and lodged the complaint. However, evidence of PW­6 Investigating Officer is not corroborating this version; [vi] A doubt has been raised by the trial Court as to whether the injuries were caused by the knife which was allegedly found on the scene of offence. 4 APLN.1521-10 5. Bearing in mind the above position, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt. While arriving at such conclusion, the trial Court had also discussed the defence of the respondent/accused as to he intervened the fight which was continuing between the complainant and his son and in that he was assaulted by the complainant and his son on his head by stick and then he fell unconscious. It is also the defence of the respondent/accused that finding the respondent unconscious on the scene of offence, a false case has been lodged against him in order to come out of the situation as to any blame on the complainant regarding injuries to the respondent/accused. 6. It appears that considering the substantive evidence of PW­1, PW­2 & PW­3 i.e. complainant, his daughter­in­law and son respectively and considering that no blood was found on the knife and in fact it is doubtful whether the knife was seized from the scene of offence on the next day of the incident, the trial Court came to the conclusion as to finding the accused not guilty. Considering the reasoning given by the trial Court, in the opinion of 5 APLN.1521-10 this Court it is not warranted to interfere in any manner with the said judgment and order of acquittal and hence present application for leave to file an appeal is disposed of with following order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.1521 of 2010 stands rejected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD