STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NAVAL SUKDEV GHARATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - State takes exception to the judgment and order passed by IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dtd. 29/4/2005 in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2003, which was tried against accused respondents herein for commission of offence punishable under 447, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In brief case of prosecution in trial court is that, informant Amit, an agriculturist had been to the field on 11/2/2002 along with his brother Bhushan. That time, accused no.1 Naval committed criminal trespass and also issued threats by questioning why water was not given to his land and issued threats to cut his legs. Shortly thereafter, accused no.2 Madhukar also committed trespass. He initially abused informant, threw chilly powder in the eyes of both, informant and Bhushan, and thereafter both of them indulged in beating informant and Bhushan by means of fist and kicks blows and stone causing bleeding injuries. Agriculturist labour Madhukar intervened, but he was also given thrashing. Accused also pushed informant and snatched his gold chain. Police was approached, who referred them to hospital and on report lodged by informant, crime was registered vide complaint at Exh.27. PW7 Ahire carried out investigation and after gathering sufficient evidence, charge-sheeted accused and accused persons were made to face trial before IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, who after appreciating oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, acquitted both the accused, resulting into instant appeal.

(3.) Sum and substance of arguments advanced by learned APP is that, prosecution has examined informant as well as his brother Bhushan. That, both of them assaulted that day. That, they both were referred to hospital and were examined by PW4 Dr. Mangesh Barde, who treated them, issued injury certificates and even stepped into the witness box at Exh.36. Learned APP submits that, along with the evidence of such witnesses, there was evidence of Investigation Officer and panchas, but the same has not been appreciated. That, no cogent reasons are assigned for disbelieving the prosecution evidence. He pointed out that, when injured themselves have testified about the events of abuse, throwing chilly powder and assaulting both of them, which was finding support from medical expert's evidence, case of prosecution ought to have been held as proved. That, prosecution had discharged its primary burden. Learned trial Judge erred in acquitting the accused in spite of availability of such quality of evidence and hence he urges for interference by allowing the appeal.