DEEPAK RAJARAM PANDE Vs. VIVEK VITHALPRASAD PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 378(4) of Crimial P.C. challenging the judgment of acquittal insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 341 r/w 149 of Penal Code passed in C.C.No.609/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Court, Dharwad dated 25.05.2010, while answering point Nos.3 and 4 as negative.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant police have filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging that on 23.10.2008, at about 1.30 p.m., inside the General Electronic Shop belongs to CW.4, situated in Anjuman Complex, Dharwad, the accused persons in furtherance of their common object abused CW.1, Deepak Pande in filthy language, wrongfully restrained him, assaulted him by hands and fist and caused simple injuries and committed mischief, broken the show case glass of CW.4's shop and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs.500.00, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 341, 427 r/w 149 of IPC.

(3.) The main grounds urged in the appeal is that learned Magistrate has not considered and appreciated the case of the complainant in the right perspective. The Court below viewed the case of the complainant with microscopic eye and tried find fault with oral evidence of PW.1 and held that prosecution has failed to prove the overt-act of the accused for the offence under Sections 504 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC. Though the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 427 r/w 149 of IPC, has strangely acquitted the accused for the offences under Sec. 504 and 341 r/w 149 of Penal Code and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the complainant is not well acquainted with Kannada language. Hence, he could not reproduce the filthy words uttered by the accused but by itself will not suffice to negate the averments of the complaint. Moreover, PW.3 in his evidence has stated about the actual words spoken by the accused and hence the trial Court had no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the version of the complainant. The trial Court ought to have seen that narration of exact abusive words need not be necessarily mentioned. Hence, the judgment of acquittal insofar as the offence under Sections 504 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC, requires to be reconsidered by this Court and convict the accused persons for the said offences also by setting aside the acquittal.