Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 2181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Parashram S/o Hari Madankar and others - Respondents
Cri. A. No. 518 of 2002
Decided On : 23-09-2016
For the Appellant : Miss Ritu Kalia, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents: R.P. Joshi (absent).
The prosecution has the obligation to prove grievous injury in cases involving offences under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellate court can only interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is found to be perverse or impermissible based on the evidence.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Offence under section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - [Section 325, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the statement of the injured, medical evidence, and the absence of certain crucial documents. The court emphasized the prosecution's obligation to prove grievous injury and highlighted the deficiencies in the evidence, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the injury suffered by the victim. The judgment also addressed the principles governing appeals against acquittals and emphasized that the appellate court can only interfere if the lower court's decision is perverse or impermissible based on the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The State appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, in a case involving an offence under section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on the statement of the injured, medical evidence, and witness testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the injury suffered by the victim and highlighted deficiencies in the evidence presented. It also concluded that the judgment of acquittal by the lower court was not perverse and therefore upheld the acquittal.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the grievous injury suffered by the victim and the principles governing appeals against acquittals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the prosecution's obligation to prove grievous injury and highlighted deficiencies in the evidence, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the injury suffered by the victim. The judgment also addressed the principles governing appeals against acquittals and emphasized that the appellate court can only interfere if the lower court's decision is perverse or impermissible based on the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate were upheld.
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
1. The State is before this Court since dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, on 26-6-2002 in Regular Criminal Case No. 93/1998, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Miss Ritu Kalia, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Advocate for the respondents remained absent during the hearing.
3. The statement of Shridhar Menghre recorded at Primary Health Centre, Ramtek, on 3-4-1998 is treated as an First Information Report in the present case (Exh.13). It shows that his agricultural land is situate just adjacent to the agricultural land of Tukaram (original accused No. 3). Canal goes through these two lands. On 2-4-1998, he was grazing his she-buffalo on the boundary of his agricultural land. That time, Tukaram was irrigating his agricultural field with the help of water that was flowing from the canal. The statement further shows Shridhar asked Tukaram as to when the irrigation of his land will be completed. On that count, a verbal altercation took place in between them. Thereafter, Tukaram gave a call to other accused Parashram, Ishwar and Liladhar. Ishwar caught hold the collar of Shridhar and Parashram gave a stick blow on his head due to which he received injury. It is also stated that he was also assaulted on the hand by the other accused persons. It is his further statement in Exh. 13 that Tukaram and Liladhar were giving choicest abuses to him and also instigating to make assault. According to Exh. 13 due to the injury he fell unconscious. After regaining consciousness, he came to his house and, in the night, he made a report to the police. It is also stated that he lost his watch of make 'HMT' in that assault, on the spot itself.
The aforesaid statement was recorded as an FIR vide Crime No. 62/1998 for the offence punishable under section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. with Police Station, Ramtek. The printed FIR on record, is at Exh.14.
The investigation was entrusted to Israelkhan and Esufkhan (PW 6). He made a visit to the spot of the incident on 4-4-1998. The spot was shown by the brother of the injured. He is Hiraman (PW 3). The panchnama of the spot was drawn (Exh.22). He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused persons were arrested. Parashram, according to the prosecution, gave his memorandum statement (Exh.23), by which he agreed to show the place where he concealed the weapon, namely, stick. The said stick was seized, on the discovery being made by Parashram. The recovery panchnama is at Exh.23. On completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was presented in the Court of learned Magistrate.
4. Charge was framed against the accused persons. They denied the same and claimed for their trial. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined as many as six witnesses. After appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate acquitted all of them by recording the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate has erroneously ignored the evidence of injured Shridhar (PW 1). She has also submitted that the prosecution has proved the fracture that occurred to Shridhar by pointing out the document (Exh.19) - the certificate given by PW 5 - Dr. Sunita Bhade and submitted that it is a fit case wherein the Appellate Court should step into the matter to avert the miscarriage of justice, that has been done at the hands of the learned Magistrate.
6. In order to secure conviction for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, the first ingredient that the prosecution is obliged to prove is that the injured has suffered grievous injury. Dr. Sunita Badhe is examined
