STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DATTATRAY KASHINATH JANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Vth Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 138/2000, dtd. 17/2/2003, whereby respondents herein (Original Accused) were acquitted of the charge for committing offences punishable under Ss. 307, 326, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC'), the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the Appellant - State of Maharashtra.

(2.) Learned APP vehemently submitted that the prosecution by way of the material evidence in the form of testimony of the complainant who was subjected to the injuries at the hand of the accused persons as well as the documentary evidence in the form of various panchanamas and the medical certificates proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was also submitted by learned APP that even if there may be some omissions in the version of Sarjerao Bapuso Ghadge (PW 2) the same are minor omissions are not fatal to the case of prosecution. It is also submitted by learned APP that the presence and the overtact committed by the accused persons is established by the prosecution. It is also submitted by learned APP that the learned Trial Judge committed a grave error in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective and arrived at an erroneous conclusion as such, learned APP prayed for allowing the appeal.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel, Mr. Shekhar Ingawale appearing for the Respondents vehemently submitted that though the prosecution claims that Sarjerao Bapuso Ghadge (PW 2) - Complainant is material eye witness to the incident and his version is full of omissions and it clearly show that the Respondents were falsely involved in a criminal case only with an oblique motive. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for Respondents that the complainant alleges that the accused persons entered in his agricultural filed and have committed an offence could not established that he was a lawful owner and possessor of the said land, on the contrary, the evidence on record reflected through other witnesses clearly show that the complainant himself had played a mischief and where the incident took place that piece of land was in possession and was under cultivation by the accused persons. So, it was the submission of learned Counsel for Respondents that the complainant himself was an encroacher over the land. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for Respondents that the offence under Sec. 307 was added by investigating officer much later and initially the offences attracted against Respondents were 326, 504, 506 of IPC subsequently, Sec. 307 was added. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent that the medical evidence falsifies the case of prosecution. Learned Counsel for Respondents thus, submitted that learned Trial Judge committed no error in appreciating the evidence and arrived at just and proper conclusion. Hence, learned Counsel prayed that appeal may be dismissed.