1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Vilas @ Sonu Ramling Bidwe and ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for the applicant/State Shri Gaurav Deshpande, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 5 th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for the applicant/State and Shri Gaurav Deshpande, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.9.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur, in Special Case (Atro.) No. 5 of 2009, acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishale under Section 13(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2 under Section 7(1)(3) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The accused nos. 1 to 4 i.e. the respondents herein were charged for the afore stated offences and they faced the trial for the above referred case. It is alleged that on 11.2.2009 in the evening accused no.4 Pappu along with accused nos. 1 to 3 came to the garage of Uttareshwar, where the complainant was working as an employee. Respondent/accused no.4 asked the complainant to fix up the tyres of the tractor brought by him. Complainant told him that he would fix up the tyres after the lunch. Thereupon, respondent no. 4 allegedly abused him saying, “Dhedgya”, (“Mahardya”) and accused nos. 1 to 3 assaulted him. The owner of the garage returned after one hour and took the complainant to the house. Accused asked Uttareshwar as to why he employed “Mahargyala” in his garage. They also abused the complainant on his caste and threatened him that to set his house on fire and also over his life. However, the matter was settled by the uncle of the complainant. 4 To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused herein, the prosecution has examined in as much as six witnesses, PW1 Amol Gawali-complainant, PW2 Pandurang Gawali-panch, PW3 Tukaram Gawali-alleged eye witness, PW4 Datta Mhaske-alleged eye withess, PW5 Uttareshwar Giram i.e. the owner of the garage, and PW6 Shankar Mamilwad-the investigating officer. 3 5 After scrutinizing the evidence, the learned trial Judge observed that the contents of the complaint nowhere disclose the caste of the accused and that they were aware about his caste. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 complainant Amol Gawali is silent that he was “Mahar” by caste and accused are not the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. Hence, learned trial Judge observed that when there is no evidence of the complainant himself that he was member of the Scheduled Caste community and the accused are not the members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, production of caste certificate of the complainant at the subsequent stage would not prove the charges levelled against the accused, and apparently, the said reasoning given by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted with. 6 Besides, it has come in the evidence that the alleged eye witnesses PW3 Tukaram and PW4 Datta were about ½ kms. away from the place of the incident, and therefore, also their testimonies come under the cloud of suspicion, in respect of witnessing the alleged occurrence of the incident. Pertinently, it has come in the evidence that people of other caste of village had gathered on the spot of the incident, but none of them has been examined by the prosecution as an independent witness. It is also significant to note that prosecution has failed to produce any medical evidence on record to prove and establish that the complainant sustained injuries. 7 Having the comprehensive view of the matter, the learned trial 4 Judge acquitted the accused and the view adopted by the learned trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, is a possible view to be adopted and same does not appear to be perverse. Moreover, the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused also appear to be proper and logical and same also cannot be faulted with. 8 Hence, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 9 In the result, present application being sans merit stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused. Present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap688.10