LAWS(BOM)-2024-2-53

AMOL SURESH LINGAYAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 26, 2024
Amol Suresh Lingayat Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 27/4/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded in Sessions Case No.366 of 2019, convict for offence under Sec. 353, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is taking exception to by filing instant appeal.

(2.) Case of prosecution is that PW1 Vishwanath Babarao Kalyankar, a Sanitary Inspector, posted in Municipal Corporation, Nanded, was performing his duty on 10/6/2017 in the vicinity of Anandnagar Chowk. He was assigning duties to labour. According to him, at that time, deceased accused no.1 Suresh accompanied by his son present appellant came and beat him and questioned him about assigning work to wife of deceased Suresh i.e. mother of appellant. Therefore, he approached Police and registered report, on the strength of which, crime was registered for offence under Ss. 353, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and same was investigated and after gathering sufficient evidence, accused were chargesheeted. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded, before whom trial was conducted, appreciated oral evidence of three witnesses as well as documentary evidence and on appreciating the same, held charges proved and passed above order of conviction, which is now questioned before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge. According to him, inspite of several people admittedly available on the said spot, no independent witnesses are examined. He pointed out that PW3 Ramdas Balaji Nilkanthe is examined, but his evidence is ambiguous. It is further submitted that complainant claims to have suffered bleeding injury, but medical expert has not been examined. That with such quality of evidence wherein there are omnibus and general allegations without specifying definite role, learned trial Court ought not to have recorded guilt. Therefore, alleging false implication, he questioned the judgment and order of conviction and prays to allow the appeal.