Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Orig. Complainant)
2. Shridhar Ladku Bhoir
3. Bharat Ladku Bhoir
4. Sudham Namdeo Patil
5. Bharat Namdeo Patil
6. Vijay Maruti Bhoir
7. Rakesh Makhniddin Yadav … Respondents.
(Orig. Accused
Nos.1 to 7)
Ms. R.S. Tendulkar APP for the State.
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. On this background the incident took place on 30th June 2001 at about 12.30 hours in the afternoon. The Accused No.1-Nitin along with co-accused Sunil Narayan Patil were present in the office. Jeevan Bhoir, Peon and K.N. Patil, Gram Sevak were also present. After arrival in the office PW No.1-Nitin was reading the proceeding book of the meeting. At that juncture accused-Janardhan, Shridhar, Bharat, Sudham and another Bharat along with two three other persons came to Gram Panchayat office. Accused No.1-Janardhan was possessing a wooden rod. He beat Nitin and others by fist and blows.
3. Nitin lodged a complaint with Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station. An offence came to be registered. PW No.9-P.S.I. Birajdar first investigated the offence and then Additional Superintendent of Police PW No.10-Rajesh Bansode completed the remaining investigation. PW No.1 was referred to I.G.M. Hospital, Bhiwandi and PW No.11 Dr. Sorte examined him. Later on, PW No.13-Dr. Sudhakar Jadhav from Civil Hospital, Thane examined him and issued a certificate.
4. During trial, the accused took a defence that the incident has not taken place in the manner alleged by the witnesses. Further more, they have pleaded that there is a counter case registered against PW No.1 Nitin and others. There is a motive alleged for false accusation as PW No.1-Nitin was removed from the post of Sarpanch, he got annoyed and that is why cross complaint.
5. With the assistance of learned APP, I have gone through the evidence of 13 witnesses. They can be categorised as the witnesses who were present at the spot, the witnesses who came to the spot later on and the police and medical officers. The law on the point of Appeal against acquittal is well settled. The presumption of innocence is reinforced. Appellate Court should be slow in interfering in the judgment. There can be interference only when the findings are perverse. They are perverse when a particular piece of evidence is not considered. They are perverse when improper evidence is considered.
6. With this view in mind, when I have gone through the evidence, what I find amongst the witnesses who were present at the spot since beginning, there is no consistency. Unanimously, they have deposed about the presence of PW No.1-Nitin and Accused No.1-Janardhan. They have not stated the names of other accused persons. These witnesses are as follows:
(i) PW No.1- Nitin – First Informant
(ii) PW No.3 Sandeep who heard the commotion but saw only accused No.1
(iii) PW No.4 Sunil who is the member of the Gram Panchayat.
(iv) PW No.5 Kesarinath who is a Gram Sevak. He has only referred Accused No.1-Janardhan.
7. As against this PW No.7- Jayant Gaikwad is working as a Clerk in Talathi office which is adjacent to the Gram Panchayat office. He heard the noise of quarrel. He saw Accused No.1-Janardhan alongwith Accused No.2 Shridhar, Accused No.3 – Bharat and Accused No.7- Rakesh Yadav assaulting Nitin.
8. Question is if one incident took place witnessed by several persons, atleast in a material particulars, they are bound to depose the same facts. Except Nitin and PW No.7, other three have not deposed about the involvement of other accused persons. So either they are lying or others are lying. Trial Court has laid emphasis on this aspect. Other set of witnesses comprises of the following witnesses:
(i) PW No.2 Vatsala Gaikwad who is the mother of first informant. She got the knowledge from PW No.7-Jayant.
(ii) PW No.6 Rohini who is a near relative got knowledge from her son Satish.
9. These two witnesses have deposed about a quarrel in between Accused and Nitin and they saw Accused Nos. 1,2,3, 6 and 7 assaulting Nitin.
10. Trial Court has also disbelieved them. It is for the reason the medical evidence does not corroborate with the prosecution case of assault by several persons. We have got evidence of two medical officers PW No.11 and PW No.13. PW No.11 first examined injured Nitin. He noticed contusion at two places and swelling. He advised an X-ray. These injuries may be possible due to fall. Whereas PW No.13 examined Nitin on 1st July 2001. He has taken X-ray and found fracture on right second proximal Phalanx and fracture of leg scapula. Even though there may be fracture, contusion is the only injury. Learned Judge was right in discarding the evidence of other eye witnesses on this aspect.
11. Learned Judge has also emphasized on one aspect; whether the incident has taken place inside the Gram Panchayat office or outside the Gram Panchayat office. I find no fault in the findings by the trial Court.
12. First of all the presence of the accused except Accused No.1 itself is doubtful. Prosecution case in its entirety about assault bys several persons itself is doubtful for want of corroboration through medical evidence. There is recovery of a stick but the pancha has not supported. There are no blood stains on the stick.
13. Learned Judge has also concluded about absence of caste abuses. This is not stated by PW No.1 or other eye witnesses. Learned Judge opined; it is nothing but the opinion of PW No.1 that he was abused on account of caste due to passing of ‘No Confidence’ motion. Abuses on account of caste is necessary as per SC and ST Act. I find no fault in the said findings.
14. Lastly, at the time of filing of Appeal, the first informant was not joined as a party. The Appeal is of the year 2004. Hence, I have not felt it necessary to issue him notice. No interference is warranted. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. Hence, no merit in the Appeal. It is dismissed. (S.M. MODAK, J.)