STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DILIP JAGANSING PARDESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution is seeking leave under Section 378(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. to present an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents/accused passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Special SC ST case No. 72 of 2008 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution the first informant Yogesh Navgire and all the accused were residing in Ranjangaon village and had acquaintance with each other. The family members of the first informant were belonging from Hindu ' Mang' community whereas the accused are from the upper caste Hindu community. It has been alleged that there were strain relations in between the first informant Yogesh and accused Ashok Pardeshi on account of earlier incident of abusing and assault occurred on 26.2.2007 and 27.2.2007. The complainant also given complaint to the police about the incident. It has been contended that on 28.2.2007, when his father and brother had been to the city for work and he was at home, that time, the accused arrived in front of his house and asked for what reason he filed police report against them. They started assaulting him by kick, stick and fist blows. Accused - Ashok abused him on his caste by uttering the words 1. Therefore, the first informant rushed to the police station and filed report. Pursuant to FIR (Exh.95) police registered the crime and set the investigation in motion. I.O. recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. I.O. Collected relevant documents including injury certificate etc. After completion of investigation, I.O. preferred the charge sheet against respondents- accused before the learned trial court for the offence punishable under the IPC as well as under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) The learned trial court framed the respective charges against accused and proceeded to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses to evaluate the guilt of the accused. The prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The learned trial court appreciated the entire oral and circumstantial evidence on record and arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned trial court exonerated all the respondents-accused from the charges pitted against them. Being dissatisfied with the impugned finding of acquittal of the respondents, the prosecution - State of Maharashtra is intending to prefer an appeal to redress its grievances. Therefore, the prosecution State of Maharashtra seeks leave under Section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. to present an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of respondents/accused passed by the learned trial court.