Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S.Shinde, Surendra P.Tavade, JJ.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Sadashiv Wadkar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 2003
Decided On : 23-12-2021
S.S.Hulke, Advocate, A.C.Gavnekar, Advocate, C.G.Gavnekar, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of trustworthy evidence and the consideration of attending circumstances in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Acquittal - Ss. 147, 148, 307, 194, 325, 149, 504, 506 - The court acquitted the accused for the charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code based on the lack of trustworthy evidence and the possibility of assault by persons other than the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the judgment and order acquitting the accused for charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case involved the complainant being abused, threatened, and assaulted by the accused, resulting in injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the evidence of the complainant not trustworthy, considering his involvement in multiple criminal cases, and gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the evidence did not inspire confidence to reverse the order of acquittal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the trustworthiness of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the involvement of the complainant in multiple criminal cases, and the possibility of assault by persons other than the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of trustworthy evidence, the complainant's involvement in multiple criminal cases, and the plausibility of the trial court's findings based on the evidence and attending circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State was dismissed as it was devoid of merits, and the court upheld the findings recorded by the trial court, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag dtd. 26/11/2002 in Sessions Case No.41 of 2000, thereby acquitting the Respondents - accused for the charges under Ss. 147, 148, 307 read with Ss. 194, 325 read with Ss. 149, 504, 149 and sec. 506 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:
On 8.1.2000, the complainant Arun Vichare, a resident of Revdanda, had gone for dinner alongwith his friend Rajan Madrasi. After having dinner, upon returning from Hotel Surbhi at about 10pm, he saw that the accused were present on the road and the accused Ravindra called the complainant. Therefore, the complainant asked his friend to proceed further. Then, all the accused abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant with knife and inflicted blows on his back and other parts of the body. Blows were also given with the help of iron bar and sticks and because of these blows, the complainant sustained injuries and then, the accused ran away from the spot. After some time, one Sudhir Modak (PW2), who came to the spot, informed the police on phone and, therefore, the police came and took the complainant to Primary Health Centre at Revdanda. The complaint was registered by the police and upon investigation, arrested the accused. Chargesheet against the accused was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Charge was framed under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Raigad Alibag. After completion of a full fledged trial, the Respondents - accused were acquitted and hence, this Appeal by the State.
3. Learned APP appearing for the Appellant - State invited attention of this Court to the entire notes of evidence and submitted that the evidence of the injured witness PW1 is trustworthy and it gets support from the attending circumstances and medical evidence and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have believed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents invited attention of this Court to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted that the said evidence suffers from omissions, contradictions and improvements. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant Arun Vichare as PW1; Sudhir Dattaram Modak as PW2; PW3 Naresh Patil as a panch witness, who has not supported the case of prosecution; PW4 Medical Officer Dr.Rajashri Jagtap, who had examined the complainant and issued medical certificate; PW5 Dr.Badgire, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Alibag, who had given subsequent treatment to the injured Arun; PW6 Salim Tandel as panch witness who had acted as panch witness, however, he did not support the prosecution case and PW7 Amar Desai, API, who investigated into the case.
According to Arun Vichare, the informant, on 8th January, 2000 at about 10pm, the accused were present on road, when the complainant (PW1) was returning home after having dinner in Surbhi hotel with his friend. At that time, accused No.3 Ravindra Sadashiv Wadkar called the complainant (PW1) by name. The other accused were accompanying the said Ravindra. When PW1 went to them, Ravindra started abusing him. He asked him whether the complainant was bringing cable connection to the village and that if he does so, he will be killed. Then, accused No.1 gave one blow by knife on his back and also on right hand and the other accused having iron rods, grinding handle also gave blows. He had in detail narrated about the said incident after he was taken to Revdanda Primary Health Centre for medical treatment where his complaint was recorded and then, he was transferred to Civil Hospital at Alibag. However, it appears that the said Rajan Madrasi, who accompanied the informant at the relevant time, has not been examined by the
