STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHEKHAR GANGARAM BARATHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the Judgment and order passed by the 7th Additional sessions Judge, Pune on 26.12.1991 in Sessions Case no. 336 of 1990 acquitting the accused of the charges under Section 307,324,323 read with 34 of the Indian penal Code.

(2.) The brief prosecution case was as under:

(3.) At the trial, 'the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses to prove its case against the accused. , the defence of the accused was one of total denial. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to acquit the accused for reasons stated in the Judgment. We have perused the evidence ourselves and we find that there are material infirmities in the evidence which may be summarised as under A) As far as eye witness P. W. No. 1 Machindra is concerned; in his F. I. R. he did not name the accused Nos. 2 to 4 but made an improvement during the evidence by (specifically naming them. b) That, according to P. w. No. 1-Machindra he was not knowing the accused Nos. 2,3 and 4. The prosecution has not held any identification parade and therefore, identification for the first time of such unknown persons, in court, becomes doubtful. c) That, P. W. No. 1-Machindra has talked about the accused No. 1 Nitin beating Dattatrtya by a wire and accused No. 2-Pritam, whom he has not named, beating Dattatraya with a chain. However, no such injuries were found on the parson of the injured Dattatraya and the doctor had opined that the injuries found on the injured were only possible by sharp cutting instrument. d) That, in so far as injured witness p. W. No. 2-Dattatraya is concerned, the version given by him is slightly different, in so far as he states that accused No. 1 beat him by a chain and accused No. 2-Pritam beat him by a wire. The weapons said to have been carried by accused Nos. 1 and 2 are different front those deposed by P. w. No. 1 Machindra. In any case as discussed above, there is no injury found either by chain or wire. e) Though; it is correct that P. w. No. 2 dattatraya has talked about giving of blow by accused No. 1 Sunil by a dagger, yet, in his cross examination P. W. No. 1 Machindra had admitted that it was true to suggest that he did not know whether accused Sunil had given blow to him on his back either by knife, by means of sattur or by means of dagger. He has also admitted that all the blows on his stomach, arms and back were given to him from the backside. He further admitted that he came to know the names of Sunil and Shekhar on 11.9.1996 i. e. four days after the incident but could not say as to who had disclosed their names. f) Though the knife and dagger were sent to chemical Analyser blood group could not be determined.