The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is critical in determining guilt.

JUDGMENT :

(Milind N. Jadhav, J.)

1. The present Appeal is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2003 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahanu below “Exhibit 70” in Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2004 by which the two respondents- Accused have been acquitted. Offences for which respondents were tried are under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short “IPC”). Complainant is the victim himself. Accused No.1 and Accused No. 2 are wife and husband, respectively.

2. The facts of the case for consideration are summarized as follows:

2.1. On 17.05.2000, in between 8:00 - 8:15 a.m., Complainant Mr. Jaikumar, resident of Bordi filed report at Gholvad Police Station alleging that Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 in furtherance of their common intention hurled insults, gave threats and caused hurt to the complainant by means of stone and the Accused No. 1 bit the complainant on his back, causing injury to him.

2.2. The dispute leading to filing of complaint, indictment and trial arises out of a civil cause of action. Place of incident is the vicinity of the house of the accused persons. Brother of Accused No. 2 sold the adjacent land next to the house of accused to complainant which was owned jointly by them without consulting the Accused No.2. Hence a civil suit was pending between them restraining the Complainant by an injunction order from putting up any construction / fencing on the said land. On 17.05.2000, Complainant attempted to put up some fencing with the aid of some workers violating the injunction order on the open land in between the two houses which lead to an altercation. According to Prosecution, between 8:00 and 8:15 am the altercation escalated and Accused No. 1 bit the Complainant on his back whereas Accused No. 2 injured him with a stone. One of the probable reason for the altercation was that on that very day the civil case was listed in the civil court for hearing. The altercation escalated initially by exchange of verbal insults, threats, provocation and abuses between the parties. Since Complainant was injured, he lodged complaint under Crime No. I-28/2000 against Accused No. 1 (Wife) and Accused No. 2 (Husband) under Section 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Sections 34 of I.P.C. Investigating Officer carried out investigation and recorded statement of witnesses and filed chargesheet.

2.3. Prosecution led evidence of six witnesses, PW- 1 was eye witness to the incident who turned hostile. PW- 2 merely deposed about the pending civil litigation between parties. PW- 3 is the Complainant himself. PW- 4 is a panch witness examined for spot panchanama, PW-5 is the medical examiner who examined the Complainant and PW 6 is the Investigating Officer (I.O.). The weapon i.e., stone is not recovered. Rather, PW- 4 has testified that the stone showed to him during trial is not the same stone.

2.4. The evidence of PW-1 is to the effect that he saw both the Accused beating the Complainant but later during cross examination he deposed that he had heard the commotion before he arrived at the scene of crime. His testimony is therefore rejected by the trial court as unreliable.

2.5. PW-1 to 3 are interested witnesses whose submissions have been substantially improved 8 to 9 times making those submissions gravely infirm and unreliable. PW-4 panch witness, did not support the prosecution case

3. I have heard both the Advocates, Dr. Kirshnaiyer, learned APP for Appellant and Mr. Modak, learned appointed Advocate for Respondents and with their able assistance perused the record of the case.

4. From the deposition of the Complainant, it is clearly seen that the dispute between parties was on account of the pending civil litigation before the Civil Court. Further it is seen that PW- 3 has deposed that during the altercation there was a scuffle between the parties namely Complainant and Accused No. 2 and in that scuffle Accused No. 2 fell to the ground. However, in his cross-examinatio