STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MUNJAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking Sec. 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) State has preferred instant application praying for grant of leave to appeal against judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Session Trial No. 133 of 2016, dtd. 30/10/2018.

(2.) The sum and substance of the argument advanced by learned APP is that, present respondents were made to face trial for charge under Sec. 302, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Elaborating the case of prosecution in the trial court, it is submitted that, on 12/5/2016, respondent no.1 was annoyed due to land dispute. In such backdrop, all accused persons went to the feld on 12/5/2016. At around 10:00 to 10:30 a.m., respondent no.1 Munjaji initially bite Nilesh and thereafter with intention to cause death, hit stone on vital part of head of deceased Bhausaheb. The injury turned down to be fatal. That, treating doctor and autopsy doctor were examined by prosecution. Deceased died on 17/5/2016. Accused are solely responsible for death of Bhausaheb which was nothing short of homicidal one. That, there was evidence of injured witness along with other eye witnesses. That, prosecution had examined in all 13 witnesses. All their testimonies were intact. It is submitted that thereby prosecution had established all the charges. However, learned trial court erred in appreciating the evidence on record and has wrongly acquitted accused persons. There is improper appreciation of evidence and failure to appreciate settled legal position. It was unwarranted acquittal and therefore, it is submitted that, State is desirous of challenging the said judgment and order and hence, as there is every of hope of succeeding, it is submitted that instant application be granted.

(3.) We have carefully gone through the evidence placed before trial court. It seems that in all 13 witnesses have been examined by prosecution. The incident in question seems to be fall out of land dispute. Prosecution seems to have examined PW2 Yogesh, i.e. son of deceased at Exh.29. His evidence suggests that on 12/5/2016, deceased Bhausaheb, injured Nilesh and Laxman went to land gut no.244. Respondent Munjaji was demanding 2 acres land more. He initially assaulted Laxman by stone. Thereafter, according to this witness, Munjaji assaulted his father Bhausaheb on his left parietal region, as a result of which deceased become unconscious and was taken to hospital. Injured Nilesh also is examined as PW5 at Exh.39 and he too has stated that present respondents abused deceased on refusal to give share in the land. This witness also stated that present respondent Munjaji initially hit this witness and when his father came to his rescue, respondent Munjaji hit him on the head with stone, whereas respondent Gangubai and Yeshodabai threw chili powder in their eyes. Likewise, prosecution has examined PW7 Sakharam, who claimed to be acquainted to both accused and deceased. He too has stated that Munjaji hit Bhausaheb with stone. Both, Bhausaheb and injured Nilesh, were taken to hospital. PW12 Narsing also stated that in his presence Munjaji initially bite Nilesh and thereafter assaulted Bhausaheb on the head.