RAJAN RAMCHANDRA HALDANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay dated october 30, 2003 in Sessions Case No. 638 of 1996. The appellant was charge-sheeted and tried for offences punishable under sections 394 and 397 of the indian Penal Code. The appellant was tried for the following charges.

(2.) Having considered the rival submission and going through the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in upholding the opinion recorded by the trial court that the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 does indicate the complicity of the appellant in assaulting the complainant after entering his shop on the fateful day. The complainant and P. W. 1 were staying in the rear portion of the said shop. P. W. 1-wife of the complainant was present in the house. When she heard shouts of the complainant, she rushed outside and saw that the appellant was walking out of the shop holding dangerous weapon i. e. chopper in his hand. The complainant was badly injured and was profusely bleeding. Prosecution has examined P. W. 3 to support the version of p. W. 1. He has deposed that after the complainant was injured and was lying near the shop, the crowd had gathered but nobody came forward for help. He volunteered to help the complainant to shift to the nearby hospital. While on his way to the hospital the complainant disclosed to him that he (complainant) was attacked by the appellant. There is no challenge to this version of the P. W. 3. The fact that the complainant was badly injured is seen from the medical report and register maintained by the hospital. To this limited extent, I have no hesitation to uphold the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant was responsible for the assault on the complainant causing injury to the complainant. Incidentally, the complainant could not be examined by the prosecution, as he was dead by the time the trial commenced. We are therefore, left with the evidence of P. W. 1-his wife and P. W. 3.

(3.) Indeed, the counsel for the appellant would contend that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to proceed against the appellant even on the allegation that the appellant was responsible for the injury caused to the complainant. It is submitted that P. W. 1 cannot be said to be the eye-witness to the actual assault as such. Besides, P. W. 1 has not named the appellant immediately, even though she had opportunity to do so while admitting the complainant in the hospital. Similarly, P. W. 1 has not named the appellant in the statement before the police immediately. In fact, the statement of P. W. I was recorded belatedly. There was inordinate delay. I am not impressed by any of these contentions.