MOHAMAD SHAFIQ KHANMOHAMAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appllant in this appeal was accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1976 in which he had been tried along with one Hanumant Bajirao Deshmukh. The accused was charged for an offence punishable undar Section 307 of the IndianPenal Code.

(2.) According to the prosecution, one Rajaram Genuji Naikade (who will hereinafter be referred to as "the complainant") was working for sometime as a driller in the construction job at Bhatsai Dam in Shahapur taluka of Thana district. That work was being carried on by a Company known as Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd, Prior to the date of the incident, he had been dismissed from service and therefore, was not being allowed to enter the Labour Colony established by the Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") for their employees. The incident in which the complainant was injured took place on 6th January 1972, which was a Thursday. According to the complair ant, at about 8-30 or 9-00 a. m. he tried to enter the labour Colony when at the chek-post the accused obstructed him as ihe complainant was not, according to the accused, allowed to enter the area of the labour Colony. The complainant swears that he told the accused that he must have writing to that effect, whereupon accused No. 1 and accused No 2 both gave in writing that they had instructions from the management not to allow the complainant to enter the labour Colony. The complainant has given later contradictory statements regarding the whereabout of tnis writing. At one place he has stated that he had given it to a friend of his from whom he was not able to collect in at another staga he has mentioned that it was stolen when he was travelling ih the train and he had lodged a complaint about its theft at the Kalyan Hallway Police Station. The question whether he had taken such a writing from accused Nos, 1 and 2 is not of much consequence. But I must Proceed on basis that the complainat was prevented by the accused from enter ing the labour Colony

(3.) It is then the prosecution case that sometime thereafter when the complainant was going in the labour Colony near a common water tap, the accused appeard there all of a sudden from the side of a shop and rebuked him for having entered the colony unauthorisedly. Tne accused had in his hand what has been described as a ' danda' by all the witnesses and with that 'danda' the accused is alleged to have given several blows on the different parts of the body of the complainant. Anticipating the prosecution evidence, I may state that this part of trie complainant's story is hopelessly unbelievable, because the medical evidence shows that not more than one or to blow could have been given on his body Be that as it may. the blow given by the accused on theright leg of the complainant resulted in the fracture of the bone in the leg Some women who were present at the common water tap, came to the assistance of the complainant by lifting him and placing him on a cot. Within a short time thereafter, says the complainant, the police arrived on the scene and recorded his complainant which is at Exhibit 26. In this complaint he has disclosed the name of the accused as his assailant & he has also disclosed the weapon which was used for causing injury to him. Thereafter the complainant was taken to different doctors for treatment and ultimately he was treated in the Thana Civil Hospital for the fracture of his leg bone. The police had registered a complainant under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. But the complainant was dissatisfied, with the same and. therefore, he filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate charging the accused with the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 109, of the Indian Penal Code, In this complaint, besides the present appellant to whom I am making reference as the accused, several other accused were joined, but ultimately the learned trial Magistrate committed the present appellant and Hanu'mant Bajirao Deshmukh to the Court of Sessions.