Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
INDIRA JAIN, J.
Kirtilal S/o Yashwant Garfade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2002
Decided On : 17-04-2017
For the Appellant : Shri V.N. Morande.
For the Respondent: Shri R.S. Nayak.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Lack of corroboration and deficiencies in the evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 333 and 353 - The Court evaluated the evidence and legal provisions under Sections 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted the deficiencies in the evidence, including the non-production of the O.P.D. register and the non-examination of competent witnesses on the X-Ray report. The Court concluded that the prosecution lacked corroboration and that it was risky to rely solely on the testimony of the complainant. Therefore, the Court acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused was convicted of offences under Sections 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting a doctor in a hospital. The prosecution alleged that the accused delivered blows to the complainant and caused multiple injuries. The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the testimony of the complainant and medical evidence. The appellant-accused appealed the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The Court evaluated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the medical officer who examined the complainant. The Court found that the prosecution did not produce the O.P.D. register to establish the accused's visit to the hospital and the injury on his finger. The Court also noted that there were no other witnesses to the incident and that the reasons for the quarrel seemed improbable. The Court further found that the medical evidence was deficient, as the competent witnesses on the X-Ray report were not examined. Based on these reasons, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence was deficient and lacked corroboration. Therefore, the Court quashed the conviction and acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused were quashed and set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the offences. The bail bonds were cancelled, and any paid fine was to be refunded to the appellant-accused. No costs were awarded.
INDIRA JAIN, J.
1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 01.04.2002 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 7/2001 convicting the appellant-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him as under:
Sections
Sentence
Fine
333 IPC
R.I. for 3 years
Fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months.
353 IPC
R.I. for 6 months
Fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for 3 months.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case, which can be revealed from the charge-sheet and connecting papers thereto, may be stated, in brief, as under:
(i) Complainant Dr. Haridas Nanduji Nandeshwar was attached to Allopathic Hospital of Zilla Parishad, Jogisakhara since 1996 as Assistant Medical Officer. A peon and a nurse were also working in the said hospital. Accused was resident of village Jogisakhara. He was son of ex-sarpanch of the village.
(ii) Incident occurred on 05.02.2000 at around 04:15 p.m. Accused went to the hospital. Complainant was on duty. Accused asked complainant that he received an injury due to bullock bite on his finger and asked him to apply bandage. Complainant put medicated cotton swab on injury on the finger of accused and asked him to hold the same so that he can bring bandage and medicines. It is the case of the prosecution that on that, accused arrogantly told the complainant that it is not his job to hold cotton swab and saying so delivered two fist blows on the chest of complainant. Complainant fell down. He then got up. Accused pulled and pushed the complainant. He caught left hand of complainant and pressed it forcibly in the wooden door. Thereafter, accused delivered blows on the chest of complainant and abused him in filthy language.
(iii) Complainant received multiple injuries including a fracture to the left hand. Thereafter, complainant went to the house of PW-3 Jagannath Bhagadkar, who was serving in the same hospital and narrated the incident to him. Then, he had been to Armori Police Station and lodged report. Crime No. 6/2000 was registered against the accused. Investigation was taken over by PW-6 ASI Purushottam Thakare. He went to the spot of incident and recorded spot panchnama. Statement of witnesses were recorded.
(iv) Meanwhile, complainant was referred to Rural Hospital Armori. PW-7 Dr. Riyaz Ahemad was the Medical Officer on duty. He examined the complainant and found injuries on left wrist, shoulder and tenderness over fingers of left hand and left lumber region. Patient was referred to General Hospital, Gadchiroli for X-Ray. Technician Shri Madami took X-Ray of complainant. From the X-Ray, fracture of scaphoid left bone was noticed. Medical Certificate was accordingly issued by the Doctor. Investigating Officer collected the Medical Certificate and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Armori, who in turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
3. On committal, Trial Court framed charge against the accused vide Exh.2. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was of total denial and false implication. Accused submitted that he had not gone to the hospital and he did not receive any injury as stated by the complainant. He submitted that accused used to remain absent from duty. He was coming late to the hospital and, therefore, complaint was made to higher authority. Complainant came to know about the same and to take vengeance, lodged false complaint against the accused.
4. Prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in support of its case. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submissions made on behalf of the parties, Trial Court came to the conclusion that offences under Section 333 and 353 of the Indian
