The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order delivered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, Tahsil Ashti, District Beed, in Regular Criminal Case No.80 of 2002, dated 13.06.2005. The respondents/accused were acquitted. It is an appeal against acquittal.

PROSECUTION’S CASE :

2. The informant Sudam Raktate (PW-1) was ploughing his agricultural land situated at village Sayedmir Loni, Tahsil, Ashti, District Beed on 27.03.2002, at about 12 noon. While ploughing, some thorny bushes were likely to cause obstacles to the bullocks eyes, which were existed on the common boundary (bandh) between his land and the land of accused/respondents. To avoid the injuries to the bullocks of the informant, he put some stones on those thorny bushes in order to bend the same. At that time accused No.1 quarreled with the informant. Other accused also came there with weapons i.e. axes, sticks and stones. They all assaulted the informant and his father. At that time, after listening the hue and cry of informant his parents and wife etc. came there to rescue him. The accused also beat them by sticks, stones and axes. The informant and his father was admitted in the hospital. A report was lodged on the same day. Crime No.19/2002 was registered in the Police Station, Ashti and the charge-sheet was filed.

3. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Accused denied the charge and they were tried.

4. Prosecution examined the informant, Sudam Raktate (PW-1), his injured father, Natha Raktate (PW-3), Dr. Balaji Gutte (PW-2) who examined injured persons, panch witnesses Jalindar (PW-4) and Sakharam Walke (PW-5). The prosecution also relied upon the report at Exhibit-31, injury certificates of the informant and his father at Exhibits-35 and 36, X-Ray plates at Exhibits-37 and 38 and the Spot and seizure of sticks Panchanama at Exhibit-44.

5. Learned Trial Court held that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused. The accused were acquitted by giving them a benefit of doubt.

6. The grounds of objections of this appeal are that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspectives and recorded incorrect findings by giving unacceptable reasons. The evidence of experienced witnesses who were injured, though corroborated, is not properly appreciated. It is lastly prayed to allow the appeal and sentence the accused.

7. Heard learned A.P.P. for the appellant-State and learned advocate for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment and the record and proceedings.

FOLLOWING POINTS EMERGED FOR CONSIDERATION :

(i) Was it proved by the prosecution that accused in furtherance of their common object of an unlawful assembly, assaulted the informant and his father and voluntarily caused hurt to them ?

(ii) Is the impugned judgment illegal, incorrect and requires interference?

8. During the course of argument, learned A.P.P. for the appellant- State pointed out the Injury Certificates and submitted that Injury Certificates are materially corroborating to the incident of assault on the informant and his father. The evidence of these two witnesses is not shaken in the cross-examination. The evidence of Sudam (PW-1) and his father Natha (PW-2) is very clear that while ploughing in the agri land, accused No.1 took quarrel with them and assaulted on the left eye of Sudam (PW-1). Accused No.2 gave blow of an axe on his head. He sustained bleeding injuries. At that time accused Nos.4 and 5 pelted stones on them.

9. Learned A.P.P. for the appellant further submitted that the evidence of injured witnesses is materially corroborated by the Medical Officer/Doctor. The report is immediately lodged and three hours delay cannot be a doubtful circumstance to acquit the accused. He submitted that prosecution case against r