BHAGWAT DNYANOBA MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, appellant/convict takes exception to judgment and order dtd. 24/10/2005 passed by learned 3 rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.67 of 2005 recording guilt of present appellant for offences punishable under Ss. 452 and 325 of the Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 25(1) of Arms Act.

(2.) Present appellant and other three accused were charge-sheeted by Chaklamba Police Station on the premise that, on 23/2/2005, informant Mithu was sleeping in the house with his family members. In the backdrop of previous episode of murder of the father of accused/appellant, all four accused charge-sheeted in the present case, went armed with articles like sword, iron rod and stick. Accused/appellant assaulted informant Mithu as well as his both minor children, causing them grievous injuries. On report of informant Mithu PW-11, crime was registered for offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 452 read with Ss. 149, 307 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC and under Sec. 25(1) Arms Act, and after investigation, they were chargeseeted and finally tried by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge Beed in Sessions Case No.67 of 2005.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant took this Court through the FIR as well as testimonies of prosecution witnesses and submitted that, there is no independent witness. That, all witnesses are family members. That, there is previous enmity. That, testimonies of prosecution witnesses are full of material omissions, contradictions and variances. Learned counsel submitted that with such quality of evidence, learned Trial Court ought not to have accepted the prosecution case as proved. She emphasizes that on the same evidence, accused nos. 2 to 4 are acquitted. She takes exception to correctness and manner of appreciation of evidence at the hands of learned Trial Court and prays to interfere by allowing the appeal. On behalf of State :