Case: State of Maharashtra Vs. Niranjan &amp; Others

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is asAccused No.1 is the owner of Niranjan Alloy Pvt. Ltd. situated at Bidkin, TqPaithan,Accused No.2 to 4 are servants in the company of accused No.1. According to the prosecution, there had been theft of electricity from the said company and therefore Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short "M.S.E.B.") had installed aopposite the company and in order to guard thethey had appointed private security guards from Singh Security Agency, so also two M.S.E.B. workers were also deputed at the spot, at the same time one armed constable was also deputed to that spot.B) On 31st January, 1998, complainant Dinesh Vairagade, who is Assistant Director, Vigilance Security, M.S.E.B. Department had visited the spot, opposite the company at about 11.00 hours to find out whether security agency persons and other staff were carrying on duties properly.C) It is the case of prosecution that around 21.45 hours accused No.1 Niranjan Jadhav came in a car while accused No.2 to 4 also came along with accused No.1. Accused No.1 Niranjan Jadhav questioned police constable Gaikwad, "if he had arms", and also threatened him that accused No.1 also possessed his arms. Thereafter accused No.1 Niranjan Jadhav fired a bullet in the direction of the complainant Dinesh Vairagade. The said bullet passed near from head of complainant and had missed him. Accused No.1 thereafter told other accused persons to take revolver and fill the bullet and return. At this juncture police constable Gaikwad told accused No.1 that if he fired again, then police constable Gaikwad would also fire with his rifle. The accused persons thereafter went away. Accordingly, complainant Dinesh Vairagade went to police station Bidkin and gave his complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.76 of 1998.D) Thereafter Investigating Officer immediately came to the spot, recorded statement of witnesses and had drawn spot panchnama. The Investigating Officer arrested accused Nos.1 to 4. He also seized revolver and 25 cartridges. He had seized camera from the house of accused No.4 Shaikh Usman. So also he had taken search of accused No.1 Niranjan Jadhav. The seized revolver and cartridges were sent to ballistic expert and after receipt of the report, submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons. The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.3. A charge was framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad against all the accused persons, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial.4. After recording the evidence and conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons from the offences with which they were charged, as stated herein above in Para1 of the Judgment. Hence this Appeal.

Court's reasoning:
14. The trial Court has observed that, in the present case the conduct of the witnesses is very material. According to the prosecution witnesses after they heard the sound, they came out of the tent, still the informant has not narrated the incident to them. The trial Court further observed that, even after the accused No.1 had fired at the informant, the informant did not move from his place, thereby further casting doubts regarding truthfulness of the prosecution story. The trial Court has further observed that accused No.1 had license to carry 25 cartridges and when police had attached the cartridges in the absence of accused No.1 from his house, all 25 cartridges were found. The trial Court has further observed that the said fact clearly discloses that bullet must not have been fired or there would have been one less cartridge which is also circumstance disproving the case of the prosecution. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly observed that, if accused and informant never met each other at any time earlier to the incident nor they had any altercation or quarrel before the incident, then there was no necessity or reason for the accused to fire at the person of the informant. After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the trial Court has observed that, it becomes substantially doubtful whether accused had really fired bullet or not and hence they deserve to be given benefit of doubt and hence entitled to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P. Code. Accordingly the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from the offences with which they were charged.15. After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we are convinced that the finding recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record. There is no perversity as such. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible. On independent scrutiny of the evidence also, we find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e.Gaikwad is not reliable, as they have stated that before the incident in question, they never met with accused persons and prior to the incident they were not even knowing the names of the accused, and they have stated the names of the accused after getting information from the M.S.E.B. workers.Kacharu Gaikwad had not at all supported the prosecution case as they have stated that they have not witnessed the incident.Sudarshan Chaudhari has also not supported the prosecution case and stated in clear terms that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot of incident.Satishkumar Tak, Investigating Officer, admitted during the course of histhat he had inspected the spot of incident minutely but he did not find any marks of firing on the spot of incident. Therefore considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is doubtful whether the incident in question had really taken place or not. In that view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves to cause interference in the order of acquittal.