STATE Vs. MANOJ PEDNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State questions acquittal of the respondents by the learned JMFC, 'B' Court, Mapusa for offence punishable under Sections 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

(2.) FACTS which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:

(3.) PW 2/Vaibhav Kutavnekar is brother of PW1/Seema Pednekar, who came to the spot after the incident. Same is the case with PW5/Ritesh Karekar. The learned Counsel for the respondents wondered as to how Vaibhav or Ritesh were not immediately told as to what had happened rather than being informed that some bad incident had taken place. He also submitted that the evidence of Vaibhav would show that one Vishakha was also present at the time of the incident and submitted that the Investigating Officer PW7/Mohan Naik admitted that he did not make any inquiries about Vishakha. He submitted that Vishakha would have been the best witness about the incident and that she was kept away from the Court by the prosecution. Cross-examination of PW2/Vaibhav itself shows that Vishakha was the daughter of brother of accused Manoj who may be about 10 years in age. Th evidence of Vaibhav or Ritesh does not show that they learnt or stated that Vishakha was in fact present at the time of the incident. Vishakha seems to have only admitted them to the house when they reached after the incident.