STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. EKNATH NARAYAN GADHAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th July, 1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahamadnagar, in Sessions Case No 67 of 1987, by which the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, "I.P.C."). The respondent-accused alleged to have attempted to commit murder of Dattatraya Pandurang Gadhave on 3.2.1986 at about 2.30 am.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the evidence of Dattatraya Pandurang Gadhave (PW 2), a sole eye-witness and victim in the present case, reveals that the complainant, his father, owned the land called "Phool Mala". There was a well in the said land which had 15 feet depth. At the relevant time it had water upto the waist level. On the fateful day, he had gone to Phool Mala at about 6 p.m. for night halt. His father, who was at Phool Mala, went home leaving Dattatraya at Phool Mala. It is alleged that the respondent-accused made enquiry with him as to whether the complainant was also with him when Dattatraya told him that his father had already left the field and he was alone. The accused went away. Then Dattatraya went to bed. In the midnight, he woke up as he was being assaulted by the respondent-accused with an axe. He immediately caught hold the hands of the respondent-accused and asked him why he was beating him. The accused told him that he had committed theft of jawar stems belonging to him. Dattatraya snatched away the axe from the hands of the accused and threw it in the wheat crop field. It is alleged that Dattatraya received axe blow on the right wrist, right elbow, on the left hand palm, above the left eye brow, head and back. The respondent-accused did not stop there and he alleged to have caught hold of Dattatraya's private part and dragged him to a distance of 5-10 feet and threw him in the well; and pelted stone at him in the well. The respondent-accused, thereafter, fled from the scene of offence. Dattatraya thereafter came out of the well and went to the vasti of one Ramchandra Gadhave (PW 3) and informed him about the alleged incident. Ramchandra bandaged Dattatraya's injuries with towel and reached Dattatraya to his house. Dattatraya - narrated the entire incident to his parents. Complainant Pandurang (PW 1) went to the Police Patil and brought him to his house. By that time, neighbours had also assembled. The entire incident was narrated to the Police Patil. Dattatraya was then taken to Supa Outpost by the complainant. The police at the Outpost sent Dattatraya to the civil hospital, Ahamadnagar for treatment. He was in the hospital for 1.1/2 months as indoor patient. The complaint was lodged by Pandurang, father of Dattatraya Police then set the investigation in motion and filed charge-sheet against the respondent-accused. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the respondent-accused, has examined as many as ten witnesses consisting of complainant Pandurang Gadhave (PW 10), Dattatraya (PW 2), Ramchandra (PW 3), Police Patil, Bapurao Tagad (PW 5), Dr. Ravindra Pathak (PW 7) and Kisan Argade (PW 9). The evidence of the aforestated witnesses was heavily relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case. The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty to the offence and claimed to be tried. His defence was of total denial. The respondent also filed written statement at Exhibit-33 contending that he was on inimical terms with the complainant and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Some documents to show that civil as well as criminal litigations were pending between the respondent and the complainant, were filed to support his defence that they were on inimical terms and hence he has been falsely implicated.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to examine the evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge, it would be advantageous to make reference to the well settled principles of law enumerated in the judgments of the Supreme Court while dealing with criminal appeals against acquittal. The Apex Court in Tota Singh & Anr. V. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1083 in para 6 made following observations: