STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHAUSAHEB HARIBHAU JAIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Abhay S. Waghwase, J 1. State has come up in appeal on getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed on 27/4/2004, thereby acquitting respondent from charge under Sec. 25(1)(a) read with Sec. 4 of the Arms Act. CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

(2.) Prosecution was launched against present respondent alleging that on 13/10/2000, villagers approached Jamkhed Police Station accusing one Mahadeo Narhari Waibhase, who was the former Sarpanch, for forming a group of Gundas and indulging in committing various offences like extortion, theft of electric pumps and committing rape. In the said complaint, accusations were also made against present respondent alleging that he was one of the members of said group. Due to fear, villagers avoided to make complaint. On 28/4/2000, there was deadly assault on Subhash Jaibhai. There was alleged used of deadly weapons like sword, pistol and hunter while committing above offences. Therefore, on receipt of complaint, Police registered FIR under Sec. 25(1)(a) read with Sec. 4 of the Arms Act, conducted investigation and chargesheeted respondent. On denial of charge, he was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed, who on appreciating evidence adduced by prosecution, held charges as not proved and acquitted respondent and hence, the appeal. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of State :

(3.) Learned APP for appellant would submit that full proof case was made out. That there is overwhelming evidence against respondent accused. That prosecution had adduced evidence of material witnesses. That their evidence had remained unshaken. That respondent was found to be in possession of deadly arms and weapons without licence or permit and as there was contravention of provisions of Arms Act, charges were proved, but according to him, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence and erred in acquitting respondent. That learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that weapons were seized, which were in possession of respondent accused, but learned trial Court has not considered this crucial aspect. Police witnesses have been disbelieved without assigning proper reasons. For all above reasons, he submits that appeal be allowed. In support of above submissions, he seeks reliance on following rullings :