STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent/original accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of 1. P. C. by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Appeal No. 20/1988 decided on 15-9-1990 whereunder the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by judicial Magistrate,first Class, Arvi in criminal Case No. 47/1981'decided on 6-5-1988 was set aside.

(2.) THE facts about which there is no dispute in this appeal are that the complainant namely PW-1 Motilal Dhulchand Rathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant')is the Editor of 'arvi Times' and the accused is the Editor of 'yuwa Samuha'. There has been professional rivalry between the complainant and the respondent.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20-1 -1981 the complainant had gone to Food Office situated in Tahsil Kacheri for obtaining sugar permit. The complainant was leaving the office on his bicycle around 6. 15 p. m. At that time the respondent at once came near the complainant and bit the left ear of the complainant. A piece of left ear of the complainant was cut because of the bite. The shirt of the complainant was stained with blood. The staff in the Food office namely PW-2 Bapurao Shankarrao chauhan; PW-3 Blawant Punjaji Gondhane; pw-6 Shaymrao Tulsiram Shendre and other persons who were present there saw the assault. The respondent, however, escaped with the piece of ear in his mouth. Thereafter the complainant went to Police Station, arvi and lodged oral report. He was immediately sent for medical examination. PW-7 dr. Divre, Assistant Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Arvi examined the complainant and referred him to Civil Hospital, Wardha. Subsequently, the complainant was referred to Government Medical College, Nagpur. PW-11 Dr. Vaidya operated him. The complainant was admitted on 21-1-1981 and was discharged from the Hospital on 3-2-1981. In the meanwhile, Crime No. 19/81 under Section 325 of I. P. C. was registered against the respondent by PW-10 H. C. Kamble. The statement of eye-witnesses were recorded and after usual investigation, the respondent was charge-sheeted.