ARUN HANMANT PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Ghadigaonkar holding for Mr. Sachin Chandan, learned Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Ghadigaonkar, submits that Mr. Chandan is busy before another Court.

(2.) The learned A.P.P has placed on record a communication dtd. 18/1/2022 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Karad. The S.D.P.O, Karad has answered queries made by this Court by an order dtd. 18/1/2022. The S.D.P.O has reported that no offence has been registered against the appellants after the present one in which they have been convicted of the offence under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He further reports that there is no complaint from the victims of the present case against the appellants as regards any harassment.

(3.) On the aspect as to why the State has not preferred an appeal against acquittal of the appellants of the offences punishable under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec. 7 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Sec. 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is reported that no such opinion has been given by the Prosecutor and, therefore, no appeal was preferred. This is unacceptable for the simple reason that it is the duty of the State Government to protect rights of the victim. In a proper case, the State Government ought to have preferred an appeal challenging the Judgment of acquittal rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge. There is even nothing on record to show that the Prosecutor had opined that it is not a fit case in which an appeal would lie.