KAUSALYA KRISHNA SHINDE Vs. DIGAMBER DATTA KANGUDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st December, 1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshi thereby acquitting all the respondents/accused from the offences punishable under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant-Kausalya Krishna Shinde is a complainant who has filed this Appeal against the acquittal. The Government has not preferred an Appeal against the respondents. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant and respondents are the residents of Village Soundare, Taluka Barshi. The incident has taken place on 17th October, 1985. There was a dispute between the families of complainant and respondents on petty issues. There was a fight on the ground of grazing of she-goats. The complainant filed criminal case at Vairag Police Station suspecting that her two she-goats out of 31 disappeared because of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, at around 10.30 a.m. on 17th October, 1985 respondents went to complainant and abused her for giving complaint against them. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 caught hold of her and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 assaulted her. Then, accused No. 1 assaulted the complainant with stick. There were kick blows on her waist and threatening was also given to her. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 slapped her and then snatched her mangalsutra with golden beads. Thereafter, she went to Vairag Police Station and lodged the complaint against the respondents. The police sent her for medical treatment to Jawahar Hospital, Barshi.

(2.) It is her case that though she filed complaint, the police neither took any cognizance nor investigated the matter, so she filed private complaint against the respondents in the Court of Magistrate. An inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. was conducted and after perusal of report of the police, the learned Magistrate issued process against the respondents under section 323 and 504 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The respondents pleaded not guilty and therefore the trial proceeded. The complainant examined in all 5 witnesses in support of her case. The respondents took defence that the complainant was in habit of lodging false cases against the respondents at the instance of one Sukhdev Kadam, who was having illicit relations with the complainant. Sukhdev Kadam was hostile with the respondents. After assessing the evidence of all the witnesses, the learned Magistrate found that there is no evidence to convict the respondents and hence gave the judgment of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal is preferred by the complainant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses in support of their case. The complainant and her two sons have deposed about how the incident of assault, pulling hair of the complainant has taken place. The learned Judge has committed error in not appreciating this evidence and disbelieving the evidence of two sons PW 2-Lahu Krishna Shinde and PW 3-Ankush Krishna Shinde. She submitted that the medical evidence discloses that the complainant had multiple contusions all over her body. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence of the complainant and witnesses. The learned Judge ought to have considered this fact and should have held the respondents guilty. She read over the relevant evidence of the witnesses in support of her submissions. Perused the judgment. The learned Judge has discussed the evidence in detail and has given appropriate reasoning. He has dealt with the evidence of each witness and has held that there are many discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses who claimed to be eye witnesses. There are different versions about the date of incident. As per the complaint, the incident alleged has happened on 28th September, 1985. According to the complainant, the incident has taken place on the next day of the missing of the goats i.e. on 30th September, 1985. However, the complainant's evidence also discloses that the incident might have taken place on 17th October, 1985. The learned Judge has highlighted this inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses. PW-2, PW-3, complainant and other eye witnesses attributed specific role of the accused persons, however, there is discrepancy in the roles attributed by each of the witnesses to the accused. The finding of the learned Judge that some untoward incident might have been happened between the complainant and the accused, however, the manner in which the incident has taken place was narrated is an exaggerated version. The learned Judge has also considered the defence properly. Admittedly the family of the accused and one Sukhdev Kadam were two political groups of the said village at the relevant time and the defence can bring some evidence to support their suggestion that Sukhdev was having illicit relations with the complainant and so the complainant lodged this false complaint at the behest of Sukhdev. The judgment of the trial Court thus cannot be faulted with and I am of the view that no interference is required in the said judgment. Moreover, the incident has taken place in the year 1985 i.e. 29 years ago. The judgment is delivered on 31st December, 1993. In view of this, Appeal stands dismissed.