STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. UDHAO PANDURANG AGLAWE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal of respondents of offences punishable u/ss. 323,504,506 r/w. 34 of I. P. Code, passed by Judicial Magistrate (F. C.), Chandrapur on 29-08-1990.

(2.) THE incident, which gave rise to this prosecution against the respondents took place on 20-07-1984 in the evening at village dighori, which comes under Police Station, mul. The victim of assault is Smt. Punabai (P. W. 4), wife of complainant Urkude Govinda dhoke (P. W. 2 ). On the day of occurrence witness Urkude was not at home, as he had gone to nearby village to the school to attend his duties as a teacher. Respondents are resident of village Dighori. The respondent no. 1 Udhav Aglawe is the husband of respondent no. 3 Anusaya, while respondent no. 2 Namdeo Sontakke is the husband of respondent no. 4-Saraswatibai. At the time of occurrence respondents Anusayabai and saibai had gone to fetch water to a well. The victim Punabai also went to the well for fetching water, carrying with her a pitcher. When she reached the well, she noticed that the pulley that was on the well used for drawing water was broken. She, therefore, questioned respondents as to who broke the pulley. It is the case of prosecution that the said query made by witness Punabai made respondents enraged and they started giving abuses to Punabai in filthy language. That time respondent no. 1 reached to that place from his house and he also joined other respondents in giving abuses to Punabai and gave slap on the back of punabai and her pitcher was broken and respondent no. 2-Namdeo who came there, also abused Punabai. This incident was witnessed by persons who collected there and amongst them was witness Ramchandra (P. W. 3), who, according to him, watched the incident from his field which is at the distance of about 50 ft. The complainant came home and after her husband returned, disclosed him about the incident. Her husband, witness Urkude, on 22-07-1984 went to the Police Station Mul and lodged written report (Exh. 39), on the basis what was disclosed to him by his wife Punabai. Police Head Constable Mahadeo Urkude (P. W. 5) who was attached to P. S. Mul on 22-07-1984, on receiving the written complaint (Exh. 39), prepared occurrence report (Exh. 43)and registered the offence and carried out investigation. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot panchanama (Exh. 37 ). After completing investigation he filed charge-sheet against the respondents in the court of Judicial Magistrate (F. C.), chandrapur.

(3.) BEFORE the court respondents stood trial on basis of allegations vide charge (Exh. 21 ). Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total denial. At the trial the prosecution examined in all five witnesses including Urkude, victim Punabai, witness ramchandra (P. W. 3) who claimed to be the eye-witness to the incident, Police Head constable Sheshrao (P. W. 5 ). The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, found that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondents on the evidence on record. He, therefore, acquitted respondents of the offences for which they were charged. Hence, this appeal.