STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DEORAO SAMPATRAO HIWASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the State has challenged validity and legality of the judgment and order dt. 17.5.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Nagpur whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(2.) It appears to be the prosecution case that, on 7.5.1997, in the morning hours, when complainant Anil and his brother went to the house of respondents/ accused for demanding the outstanding amount - payable by the respondents/accused pertaining to the transaction of sugarcane, the respondents got annoyed. The respondent/accused Sampatrao caught hold of the first informant Anil while accused Deorao assaulted him with an axe. Upon these accusations, the respondents/accused were prosecuted for the alleged offence committed under Section 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate, who recorded the evidence and considered the same, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence regarding connection of the weapon allegedly used - with the injury seen. The learned trial Magistrate also considered the evidence that, according to the first informant Anil, accused Deorao gave a blow over his head. However, the medical evidence did not support the oral evidence of the complainant first informant Anil as, according to the medical evidence in respect of the injury sustained by him, multiple lacerated wounds were found on the body of said Anil, which was inconsistent with the case of the said first informant that only one blow was given to him by Deorao. Defence of the accused that - the first informant had fallen on the kutcha road of gitti and bolder and sustained multiple lacerated wounds - was accepted as it was consistent with the findings recorded by the Medical Officer in respect of the injury suffered by the first informant. The prosecution also did not produce the seizure panchanama in respect of the clothes of the injured. Thus, the entire evidence created serious doubt regarding genuineness of the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate rightly granted benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Thus, having considered the submissions at the bar advanced by the learned A.P.P. and Mr.S.P.Palshikar, learned amicus curiae, it has to be concluded that there is no merit in this appeal. Even otherwise, acquittal of the accused by the trial Court bolsters up the presumption as to innocence of the accused further. The impugned judgment and order also appears to be well-reasoned considering the entire evidence on record as also discrepancies in the direct evidence as well as the medical evidence, which led to giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. For all these reasons, the instant Criminal Appeal fails. Hence, the same is dismissed.