AKASH RAJENDRA KADAVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the Advocate for the Appellant. We have perused the copies of the two statements, one which is recorded at the instance of the present Appellant and the other at the instance of the Complainant.

(2.) The Complainant in his statement to the Police has stated that he had been residing at the address which is mentioned in the statement, along with his mother, father and younger brother. He is working. He says that when he was returning home after a night shift at about 9.00 p.m. at a place called Bhoite Construction, he was brushed by a scooty by the complainant. The scooty was immediately stopped. The Appellant and the Complainant were acquainted and familiar with each other. There was an assault and by both. It is stated that the incident of assault was really a triggering point. That is why the present Appellant was involved in a false case. The false case according to the present Appellant is that the Complainant was abused in the name of his caste. The complainant narrates that he was riding a motor cycle and was obstructed. First he was assaulted and abused in the name of his caste.

(3.) From both these incidents, an argument is canvassed before us that this could be a counter-blast as a assault on the Appellant. It is the complainant who has proceeded to frame the present Appellant and the abuses that are attributed to the present Appellant are not in the name of any caste much less a scheduled caste.