NIRJALABAI PRALHAD KAWALE Vs. VISHWANATH BHIMRAO KAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. A. Shelat, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri. S. G. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 to 4 and Shri. Sonare, learned A. P. P. for the respondent no.5. Perused the record.

(2.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehekar, by his judgment and order dated14-12-1999 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 178/1996 acquitted the non-applicants nos. 1 to 4 of the offences punishable under sections 324, 504 and 506 read with section34 of I. P. C. THE present revision application is preferred challenging the said judgment of acquittal.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court examined in all 8 witnesses including complainant - Gayabai (P. W.1), Govinda Rathod Panch Witness on Spot Panchanama Exhibit 290, Laxman Rathod (P.W.3) who when appeared on the scene of offence saw Gayabai, Pralhad having sustained injuries and he took the injured to the hospital and in his presence the blood stained clothes were seized under the Panchanama Exhibit 31. Deorao Bhalerao (P.W.4) who claimed to be an eye witness to the incident, Nirjala Pralhad (P.W.5) and Pralhad Kawale (P.W.6), Mohan Chavan (P.W.7) who acted as Panch witness in whose presence Saree and blouse of complainant Gayabai came to be seized under Panchanama Exhibit 31 and Rameshwar Kale A. S. I. who carried out the investigation. THE learned Magistrate on assessment and appreciation of evidence led so far by the prosecution found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the non-applicants/accused committed offence with which they were charged. As can be seen from the judgment of the trial court he found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the incident including the injured was discrepant on material particulars. He also found that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused Uddhao Vishwanath, Limbabai Vishwanath, Ashabai Vishwanath and accused Vitthal Vishwanath. THE prosecution has failed to establish genesis of the incident. THE trial court therefore, acquitted the accused. Hence this revision.