1. This revision application is contested by the son of original accused late Balasaheb Nivrutti Jagtap, who died pending Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2000, which was preferred challenging the judgment of conviction.

2. The accused was prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 323, 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC'). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences by judgment and order dated 12th December 2000. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and order convicting the accused, was dismissed by Sessions Court by judgment and order dated 29th November 2004.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(i) The complainant was working as a Conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Department (‘S.T.Department'). The accused was serving in Maharashtra State Electricity Board. On 21st November 1998, the complainant was on duty on the bus plying from Satara. After completing two trips, the bus was parked at Satara ST stand. The accused was also on the said stand at the relevant time. He used to travel every day from Satara to Lonand;

(ii) The accused approached the complainant and asked him whether he had given complaint against him. He caught hold of the neck of the complainant and assaulted him with fist on his face. Due to the said assault, the complainant sustained bleeding injuries on his face;

(iii) The driver of bus came to the spot and took the accused and the complainant to police station. The investigation was conducted vide CR No.429 of 1998 registered with Satara City Police Station for offence under Section 323, 332 and 353 of IPC;

(iv) On completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as Regular Criminal Case No.328 of 1998.

The charge was framed against the accused. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and the appeal preferred by the accused was also dismissed by the Sessions Court.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 Aadikrao Pawar being the complainant, PW2 Ashok Shikhare is Panch witness for recovery of clothes, PW3 Ganpat Sablethe driver of ST Bus, PW4 Smt.Ujwala Mulethe Medical Officer, and PW5 Shankar Shinde-Investigating Officer.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant-original accused Shri Bodke with Mr.Yadav advanced following submissions :

(a) Although the alleged incident had occurred at the crowded place, the prosecution has not examined any eye witness of the alleged incident;

(b) PW3 i.e. the bus driver examined by the prosecution as a witness to the incident, does not speak about the alleged blows given by the accused to the complainant. He has deposed that before he returned to the bus, the entire incident was over;

(c) The complainant was indulging in nefarious activities against which the accused had filed complaint and therefore a false case has been registered against the accused out of vendetta;

(d) The medical evidence is contrary to the oral testimony of the complainant. The case of the complainant was that single blow was given to him by the accused but there were two injuries on the person of the complainant;

(e) The medical officer has stated that the injuries sustained by the complainant are also possible by any other reason stated by the said witnesses in his evidence;

(f) The medical evidence shows that the injuries caused to the complainant were possible due to fall in the bus;

(g) Both the Courts have failed to take into consideration the fact that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and erroneously convicted the accused;

(h) The version of the complainant creates doubt which cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. The prosecution has not established the charge under Section 323 of IPC. The evidence on record also does not establish the charge u/s 332 and 353 of IPC.

6.