STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. UDHAV MADHAV PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant-State has appealed against the judgment and order dated 16th February, 1987, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur, in Criminal case No.766 of 1983, by which the respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 326, 324, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C."). The allegation against the respondents was that about 20 years ago on 14.10.1983, the respondents-original accused, in furtherance of their common intention, alleged to have assaulted the complainant Balbhim Shinde (PW 1) and his brother Mahadeo Shinde (PW 2).

(2.) THE prosecution case, stated briefly, is that on 14.10.1983, the complainant and his brother Mahadeo Shinde were proceeding towards the farm house of one Devidas Nimbalkar (PW 3) to bring his bullock-cart. When they reached near the farm house of Nimbalkar all four accused, who were armed with weapons like axe, gupti Gophan and stick, came there. Some hot altercations took place between them when it is alleged that they assaulted the complainant and his brother Mahadeo. Mahadeo alleged to have received injuries on his head as a result of which he fell down. The complainant also received some injuries on his hand. When the alleged incident was occurring, police reached the scene of offence in a Jeep and they arrested Uddhav Patil respondent no.1 on the spot who was allegedly armed with gupti. In so far other accused are concerned, they fled away. Thereafter, on the complaint lodged by Balbhim, (PW 1) investigation was set in motion and the chargesheet was filed on 31st October, 1983.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of their case examined as many as six witnesses consisting of the complainant Balbhim (PW 1), his brother Mahadeo (PW 2), Devidas Nimbalkar (PW 3), Ashok Chavan (PW 4), Vithal (PW 6) and in support of ocular evidence, the prosecution examined Dr. Zambre (PW 5) who examined the injured witnesses. The other evidence in the form of medical certificates and attachment of clothes and gupti at the instance of respondent no.1-accused was also placed reliance upon by the prosecution in support of their case. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record and after watching the demeanor of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that all the accused were liable to be acquitted.