STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JERONIO FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this criminal Misc. Application for special leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the J. M. F. C. at Margao in criminal Case No. 84/s/01/d. By the said judgment and order dated 28-12-2004 the trial Court acquitted the respondents in respect of offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 332 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the prevention from Destruction of Public Premises act (hereinafter referred to as the P. D. P. P. Act).

(2.) Brief facts are as under : the prosecution case is that on 16-12-99 at about 19. 30 hrs. to 11. 15 hrs. the caused/respondents No. 1 to 39 along with 158 to 163 others formed an unlawful assembly near the Cuncolim Police Station premises and pelted stones over the Police station building, as a result of which three constables were injured and the property of the Police Station was also damaged. Accordingly a complaint was registered and thereafter charge-sheet was filed under sections 143, 147, 148, 332 r/w section 149 of i. P. C. and section 3 of the P. D. P. P. Act against the respondents. The trial Court however acquitted all the accused after giving them the benefit of doubt. This State has preferred this appeal against acquittal and the said judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate F. C. at Margao.

(3.) I have heard Shri Sardessai, the learned P. P. on behalf of the State. He has taken me through the judgment and order of the trial Court as also the oral and documentary evidence which is brought on record by the prosecution. He has submitted that the learned Magistrate had clearly erred in discarding the evidence of the eye witnesses who were injured in the incident without giving any cogent reasons for disbelieving their testimony. He submitted that the trial Court had clearly erred in disbelieving their testimony on the ground that they were police officers and that independent witnesses had not been examined by the prosecution. He submitted that the incident in question had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. He further submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the property of the Police Station was damaged by the respondents who had taken law into their own hands. He therefore submitted that it was a very serious offence which was committed by the respondents and the learned Magistrate had committed manifest error in disbelieving the oral testimony of the injured persons. He submitted that the medical evidence also clearly supported the testimony which was given by the Police officers who were injured in the incident. Therefore there is no reason to discard the evidence of these witnesses particularly when each of them had named the respondents/accused who had participated in the commission of the said offence. He submitted that the trial Court had clearly erred in holding that there was no direct evidence against the accused. The prosecution had brought on record the evidence of the eye witnesses. He submitted that therefore the view taken by the learned Magistrate was clearly unreasonable and was liable to be set aside.