JIJABAI BABAN HARNAIK Vs. SANTOSH GOVIND TARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Criminal Revision Application, the original complainant has challenged the order of acquittal which is passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai whereby the respondents / accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Revision Application are as under:-

(3.) A criminal complaint was lodged by the Petitioner at Wadala Police Station, alleging that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had assaulted her and her husband and had committed an offence punishable under section 326 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses and a charge- sheet was filed in the trial court. The prosecution relied on the statement of the Petitioner who was injured in the said incident. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of doctor who had treated both the husband and wife and had produced the medical record disclosing the treatment which was taken by the petitioner and her husband and injuries which were inflicted by the assailants. The learned Magistrate, however, did not accept the testimony of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that there were number of material contradictions in the statements of both the eye witnesses and that, admittedly, there was an enmity between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and, therefore, it was not possible to accept their testimony particularly when there was no corroboration to their testimony by any independent witness. The trial court further observed that the injuries which were found on the person of the petitioner could have been caused by a fall and relied on the admission which was given by the doctor in his cross-examination. The trial court further observed that, according to the petitioner and her husband, it was dark at night and, therefore, the trial court felt that even assuming that the petitioner was assaulted, it was difficult to believe her testimony that respondents were responsible for attacking her. The trial court, therefore, acquitted all the accused.