DATTU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 346 of 2016 dtd. 18/7/2017 thereby acquitting respondents from charges under Sec. 143, 147, 148, 324 read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act), original complainant has preferred instant appeal praying to set aside the impugned judgment.

(2.) It is submitted that, complainant and respondent are agriculturist and are having agricultural lands adjoining to each other. There is a common ridge in between their land. There is dispute over the same. In backdrop of civil dispute, both are on cross terms. It is pointed out that, on 28/7/2016 accused Jalindar questioned complainant for removing grass and placing it on the bandh. Thereafter, there was quarrel, but accused pulled and dragged complainant causing hurt. That, accused humiliated him by making reference to his caste. That, complainant had adduced his own evidence and had also adduced testimony of Meerabai an witness. Thus, there was sufficient corroboration. That, there is medical evidence suggesting injury and thereby prosecution had proved the case. That, complaint was lodged promptly, but learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence and held charges as not proved beyond reasonable doubt and straightway acquitted respondent from serious charges. Therefore, it is submitted that, evidence be re-appreciated and impugned judgment be set aside.

(3.) In response to above, learned counsel for respondent would point out that, there was already dispute existing on alleged bandh. There was abuse of process of law by leveling false allegations of caste abuse, even when there was no such incidence. It is pointed out that, there was no corroboration to the testimony of complainant. Learned trial court has disbelieved the eye witness account as both complainant and alleged eye witness were not consistent and were rather giving contrary versions. That, even incident had not taken place in public place and therefore, learned trial Judge rightly held that charges of SCST Act are not attracted. Hence, for all above reasons, he submits that, there being correct appreciation and no merits in the appeal, he prays to dismiss the same.