STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GAJENDRA VASUDEO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30th July 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur acquitting all the Accused / Appellants from the offence punishable under Sections 302, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that, evidence of the witnesses has rightly been discarded by the Trial Court since none of the witness has stated about the injuries suffered by the accused. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses tried to suppress the genesis of the incident therefore their evidence cannot be accepted since not trustworthy. In support of his contention that omission on the part of the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consist of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one; learned counsel appearing for the Respondent relied upon the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others etc Appellants v. State of Bihar Respondent, 1976 CrLJ 1736. Learned counsel also invites attention of this Court to the evidence of the defence witnesses and also the injuries suffered by the accused. It is submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from omissions, contradictions and improvements and medical evidence is also not consistent with the prosecution case. The Trial Court has taken a plausible view and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are in consonance with the evidence on record and therefore, Appeal deserves to be dismissed thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.