THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. APPAJI JAKKANA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed on 29th March 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, who had set aside an order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandgad, District - Kolhapur. The Trial Court had convicted respondent in this appeal for an offence under Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Though the learned APP made valiant efforts to convince the Court, in fairness agreed that PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 have turned hostile. Out of nine witnesses, five who are independent witnesses, have turned hostile. Other four witnesses are complainant, his wife, Medical Officer and Investigating Officer.

(3.) PW-6 and PW-7 were star witnesses for the prosecution. Both denied any knowledge about the incident. PW-2 and PW-3 were witnesses for spot panchnama and they turned hostile. PW-4 was the seizure panch witness and it is prosecution's case that accused on his own appeared before the Investigation Agency and produced the stick, which he had used to assault complainant. PW-4 had infact denied that he was ever present at the police station or even the other panch witness was present or that accused produced the stick, which has been seized in connection with the crime. Case of complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-5) is that the incident happened in the presence of PW-6 and PW-7 but both of them even denied any knowledge. PW-5 in her cross examination has admitted that last five or six years they have not been in talking terms with accused who was her neighbour. Therefore, admittedly the relationship between the parties involved is strained. PW-1 has also stated that he lodged a written report which has been received by the police in the hospital but the same has not been produced in the trial. PW-1 and PW-5 both state that it was dark at the time of incident and when we consider the evidence in totality, PW-5 also cannot be accepted as an eye witness to the incident. This is because PW-1 has stated that nobody was present at the time of assault. Therefore, having perused the evidence and the impugned judgment with the assistance of the learned APP, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment.