STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NARAYAN NIVARATI BODLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is filed by the State challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, dated August 1, 1979. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") were charged for commission of offences under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries to five witnesses, P. W. 1 to P. W. 5. 2.According to the prosecution, complainant Janabai and four accused persons are residents of village Awalkonda, taluka Udgir. District Osmana- bad. On the date of the incident, i. e., on October 18, 1977, at about noon time, in the village Awalkonda complainant Janabai P. W. 1 along with Vithabai P. W. 2, Kevalbai P. W. 3, Kamalabai P. W. 4 and Kevalbai Gaikwad P. W. 5 visited the land in dispute for collecting grass. It is alleged by the prosecution that when these five ladies were busy in cutting the grass, accused Nos. 1 to 4 without any authority entered their field and questioned them as to why they were collecting grass. Further, according to the prosecution, the accused assaulted these ladies with but end of the axe and katre and caused injuries to all the five ladies. Complainant Janabai P.W. 1 and other injured ladies came to the Police Station, Udgir, and lodged a complaint against the accused. The Police Officer-in-charge of the Police Station received the complain, registered the offence and sent the complainant and other ladies for medical examination. After completion of the necessary investigation all the four accused were charge-sheeted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir. 3. The defence of the accused is of total -denial. According to accused No. 1, he had filed a complaint against the husbands of all the five ladies in this case for an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and it is therefore, they are inimical towards all the accused persons and they have filed a false case, falsely implicating the accused persons. It is contended by the accused in defence that the land in dispute where the grass was cut by the ladies was sold by their husbands to the accused persons and there was a dispute between the parties. It is more or less admitted by the complainant that on the date of the incident in question the accused persons were in possession of the said portion of the land. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, recorded the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the case. Five ladies who were injured are examined and a Medical Officer who had examined them is also examined along with the medical certificates issued by him. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the evidence of all the five witnesses and it is further observed that the medical evidence on the record does not corroborate the version given by the witnesses against the accused persons. On the said finding, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit all the accused of all the offences charged against them. Against that order of acquittal the present appeal has been filed by the State. 5. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing in support of the appeal contended that the learned Magistrate committed an error in rejecting the evidence of the victims of the assault at the hands of the accused. Mr. Deshmukh further urged that the evidence of the five injured witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence on record. According to Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Magistrate erred in passing the order of acquittal or giving a benefit of doubt to the accused persons. 6. Now it is well settled that if the assessment of the evidence and the conclusion drawn by the trial Court are not so unreasonable, then the Court of Appeal cannot interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In Dinanath Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 1199, the Supreme Court observed that where the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is reasonably possible, even if the High Court were to take a different view on the evidence, that is no ground for reversing the order of acquittal. In the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court, the evidence in this appeal will have to be considered. 7. Mr. Deshmukh has taken me through the entire evidence on these five! witnesses. Admittedly there is enmity between the complainant and the other ladies on the one hand and the accused persons on the other. There is a: criminal case pending against the husbands of all these injured ladies under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Curiously enough the prosecution has not examined any independent witness to support the prosecution case. It is true that an injured witness normally will not involve an innocent person in an offence under -Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. But having regard to the facts of the present case and the contradictions that have been brought out in the cross-examination and the fact that the witnesses are inimical towards the accused persons, a corroboration in material particulars must be available on the record. Mr. Deshmukh pressed in service the evidence of the Medical Officer Sheshrao Bange P. W. 7. Dr. Bange has given the details of the injuries sustained by Janabai, Keyalbai w/o Govind, Vithabai and Kevalbai w/o Vithal. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Bange is proved with reference to the injuries caused to these ladies. In the cross-examination, Dr. Bange has stated that the injury on Janabai can be possible by fall and coming that part in contact with stone. Injury of Kevalbai cannot be possible by Chui ( ). The doctor has further stated in the cross-examination that the injury of Kewalbai w/o Govind can be possible if by mistake vila or katti is hit in course of cutting the grass with the left hand. Injury No. 2 of Vithabai can be possible by brush to wall. From the nature of the cross-examination, it is apparent that the medical evidence on the record does not support the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate has pointed out in the judgment the discrepancies and the infirmities in the evidence of each of the five witnesses. It is further noticed in the case that the defence of the accused was more reasonably probable. The defence contended that these five ladies entered the filed of the accused without their permission and started cutting the grass and when they were questioned, they started running away from the field. While running away from the field, they had fallen down and received injuries. 8. The defence also produced a defence witness Sonabai D. W. 1. She is an independent witness. She also had been to the field of accused No. 1 for cutting corns. She has stated that P. W. 1 to P. W. 6 came in the field of accused No. 1 and started cutting jawar corns of hybrid. When questioned by accused No. 1 as to why they had come to the field, prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 to 6 started running away. The witness has further stated that some of them fell down while running away. The accused never entered in the field of complainant Janabai or any other witnesses, nor assauted them. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness which would discredit this witness. The learned Magistrate has accepted the version given by this defence witness and I do not find any valid reason to discard the evidence of this witness and hold that the defence of the accused is reasonably probable. 9. Even if this Court is to take a different view of the evidence, the same cannot be a ground for reversing the order of acquittal. The Supreme Court has in innumerable cases laid down that the reversal of an order of acquittal by the High Court must be based upon an unassailable evidence in order to convict the accused person. The High Court should not reverse the order of acquittal merely on the ground of credulity of witnesses. Even in cases where a different view is possible than the view taken by the trial Court, then the High Court should not normally interfere with the order of acquittal. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above is applicable to the facts of the present case. Although a different view is possible of the evidence, in the interest of justice it is net fair and permissible to reverse the order of acquittal in this case. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, in Criminal Case No. 7 of 1978 is here by confirmed.