DEEPAK Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision takes exception to the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Achalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2003 dated 27.9.2011, dismissing the same and thereby maintaining the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 3rd Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2003 vide which applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 458, 459 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years on each count, and is to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, in default to suffer further R.I. for one month on each count. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Mohan Mohod was working in Police Department at Amravati and was residing in Sai Nagar, Kandali, Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati. On 19.12.2002, when complainant came to his house at about 22.30 hours along with Vijay Mandale and Ashish Bhande, they all noticed that in the house of complainant lights were on and the doors were closed from inside. Complainant thus, along with his companion pushed opened the door and noted that household articles from the almirah were scattered around it and applicant was found present having armed with iron rod. At the same time complainant caught hold the applicant and snatched the iron rod. It is the case of the prosecution that in the course of said transaction applicant-accused attempted to assault the complainant and bit little finger of the complainant. According to the case of the prosecution, accused was found on the spot and was accordingly handed over to the Police by the complainant.

(2.) On the basis of report lodged by Mohan Mohod offence came to be registered by Paratwada Police Station vide Crime No. 213 of 2002 and on completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed. Charge is framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the accused is of total denial and on false implication. It is the case of the accused that some other person entered the house of the complainant and scuffled with him during the course of which complainant sustained injuries.

(3.) That the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court considering the evidence on record convicted the accused as aforestated, hence this revision.