STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HANUMAN HARINARAYAN SOMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is taking exception to the judgment and order dtd. 13/12/2005 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Special Case No. 02 of 2005 acquitting present respondents from offence punishable under Sec. 147, 148, 323 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3(1)(x)(XIV) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) Informant Kamalbai and her husband Jagan were returning to their house on 12/1/2004 at around 5:00 p.m. According to prosecution, accused nos.1 to 5 questioned them for occupying the Gairan land and asked them to vacate the same. In above backdrop, it is alleged that, accused persons initially threatened, then hurled on caste abuse. Accused no.1 tried to give a blow of axe on Jagan, but it was prevented by informant Kamalbai by intervening, however, she suffered injury. Thereafter, accused no.4 and other accused used stick for thrashing Kamalbai and Jagan i.e. husband and wife, who were referred for medical examination and on report of PW1 informant Kamalbai crime bearing No.07 of 2004 was registered.

(3.) Learned APP would submit that, case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Informant Kamalbai and her husband Jagan were assaulted by accused persons by means of axe as well as sticks. That, both of them specifically named the accused in their testimonies, which is consistent and lending support to each other. That, in support of the injuries inflicted by accused and suffered by informant and her husband, medical expert who had occasion to treat, is also examined. That, injuries are proved. Therefore, all ingredients for attracting Sec. 323 of IPC are available in prosecution evidence. That, accused persons had formed unlawful assembly with common object. That, there were abuses on caste basis, and therefore, even provisions of Atrocities Act were attracted. He submitted that, investigation was carried out by PW5 S.D.P.O. Vaijapur, who is authorized to investigate such cases. That, evidence of all witnesses has remained intact and core of the prosecution could not get shaken in spite of extensive cross. Thus, according to learned APP, learned trial court ought to have convicted the accused, but it having failed, learned APP urges indulgence by allowing the appeal.