KAMLESH MALKARNEKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has offered challenge to the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao dated 16.10.2014 pursuant to which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentenced the accused under Section 324 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and directed that the amount be paid to the injured as compensation for the injuries caused to him. The accused was sent up to face trial by the Quepem Police Station under Section 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. on the premise that sometime on 08.05.2012 at about 16.00 hours the appellant had assaulted the husband of the complainant with an iron bar on his head and chest and due to which he had sustained injuries on his body and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences on account of previous enmity. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Quepem. Thereupon the appellant was tried before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Margao who convicted the accused under Section 324 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The parties would be referred to as the appellant and the State for brevity's sake hereinafter.

(2.) The State had examined 9 witnesses in support of its case and thereafter the accused came to be examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when he denied the case of the prosecution as put to him and did not lead any evidence in defence nor examined himself in defence. Be that as it may, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence Advocate held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly which sentence is under challenge in this appeal coming up for disposal today.

(3.) Shri Ryan Menezes learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellant who submitted that though the charge was framed under Section 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C., the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had convicted him under Section 324 I.P.C. It was his contention that even the evidence was not sufficient and there were serious gaps in the version of the material prosecution witnesses. The recovery of the weapon of assault was more than four days after the alleged incident which aspect was not considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge had also not considered that there were civil disputes between the family of the accused and the complainant. There was reasonable doubt and the case that was brought forth was not at all believable. He adverted to the evidence on record and submitted that there were serious omissions and contraditions in the case brought forth on behalf of the prosecution and therefore, on that premise alone, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and an order of acquittal in his favour.