STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAYRAM LAXMAN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this appeal the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 2-4-1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Sawantwadi, in Regular Criminal Case No. 19 of 1983 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I. P. C. , read with 34 IPC.

(2.) IN short the prosecution case runs as under: Narayan Naik P. W. 6, the husband of the complainant Bhagirthi Narayan Naik P. W. 5 had filed Chapter cases against the respondents which ended in acquittal. On this score there was inimical strain between the husband of the complainant and the respondents. On 24-12-1982 at about 8 A. M. when Narayan Naik P. W. 6, the husband of the complainant, was returning from his field the respondents emerged all of a sudden. Respondent no. 1 asked the other respondents to catch hold of Narayan Naik and thereupon the respondent no. 3 caught hold of the private parts of Narayan Naik, Respondents nos. 2 and 4 thereafter pushed him on the ground and respondent no. 1 struck him on his head thrice by a phal. As a consequence of the assault he became unconscious. Thereafter respondent no. 2 bit him on his shoulder. After assaulting Narayan Naik, the respondents are said to have run away. The complainant then lodged her F. I. R. Thereafter the matter was investigated by the police and the respondents were charge-sheeted. Thereafter they were put up for trial and were acquitted on the counts mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. We have also examined the reasons for acquittal assigned by the learned Magistrate. It appears that amongst other circumstances the two which mainly influenced the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order were motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the respondents because earlier her husband had unsuccessfully prosecuted them in chapter cases and the slip-shod investigation. The learned Magistrate has specifically mentioned that there has been a delay of 20 days in recording the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr. P. C. When the said reasons are examined in the light of the facts that the incident took place nearly 16 years ago; 13 1/2 years have elapsed since the impugned order of acquittal was recorded; and the offence in question are petty, it would be conductive to the cause of justice if no interference is made in this appeal.