NETRAM SHANKAR HINGWE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-accused herein is challenging his convidtion for an offence under section 3(1)(V) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short is that the appellant and the complainant Bhajan Chankapure (P.W.1) have their fields adjacent to each other. Bhajan had dug a duct in his field so that the water would not accumulate in his field so as to damage the crop therein. It is an admitted position that P.W.1 - Bhajan got this land from the Government as the same was allotted to him, it being a surplus land in some other proceedings under the Ceiling Act. THEre is an embankment in between the two fields and according to the prosecution, the drain or the duct is by the side of that embankment in the field of the complainant Bhajan and that the said drain is there for last 8 to 10 years. It is also an admitted position that there was a dispute between the appellant and the complainant Bhajan (P.W.1), as according to the complainant, the appellant-accused was throwing his waste material from his well which he dug about couple of years prior to the incident and because of the waste material from that well, the said duct was being completely jammed. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant tried to request the appellant-accused to excavate the material with which the said drain was got packed and jammed, as because of the said duct being jammed, the water could not flow out from it and that damaged the crop of the complainant. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant had so requested to some other persons in the village, but the accused was not paying heed. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.7.1992 at about 10.00 a.m., when the complainant had been to his field, the appellant-accused was also in his field. THE complainant Bhajan again requested the appellant-accused to excavate the said material from his drain or Nali, and on that the appellant-accused abused him using the words 'Maharya Dhedgya' and expressing that he had got the land without paying any amount. On this the complainant went to the Police Patil Mahadeo Ingle (P.W.2) and narrated the incident to him. THE Police Patil got a report scribed for him and this written report seems to have been filed in the Police Station, Karanja. THE Investigating Agency sprang into action, on the basis of this report, and registered offences. During investigation, they executed a spot panchanama; found the duct also which was allegedly jammed by the appellant-accused by throwing the waste material and recorded the statements of witnesses.After completing the investigation, they filed the chargesheet before the Special Court, Wardha.

(3.) SMT. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant accused, very strenuously urges that the trial Court has completely shut its eyes to the fact that there was a faction ridden village and that the appellant accused was its Sarpanch and, therefore, he was bound to face some political animosity. She has criticised the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, on the ground that it has not shown restraint or caution that it was expected to show while appreciating the evidence of the interested witnesses who were politically motivated. She has further pointed out that there was no corroboration to the evidence the complainant Bhajan (P.W.1) and it was wholly unlikely that an incident, which took place in a broad-day light in the open field, would not be noticed by any other person. She points out that there was nobody to support the theory of the prosecution. She has lastly pointed out that there is a delay in filing the First Information Report, inasmuch as the said First Information Report was filed on 17.7.1992 at 15.30 hrs., whereas the incident took place on 16.7.1992 in the morning.