The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

[SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]

The aforesaid Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 9^th December 2003 passed by a Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandala, District Satara in Regular Criminal Case No.56 of 1997, thereby the Respondent Nos.1 to 6/Original Accused Nos.1 to 6 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 37 (1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. (Hereinafter, the Respondents are being referred to by their original status before the trial Court).

2) Record indicates that Appeal was admitted only against the Accused Nos.1 to 3, vide Order dated 21^st July, 2004. Thereafter, the procedure under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. was followed.

3) Heard Ms. Tendulkar, learned A.P.P. for the Appellant- State and Mr. Pasbola, learned appointed Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.

4) Facts giving rise to this Appeal are as under:-

The prosecution story is that, On 18^th July 1997, at about 5.30 p.m., PW1-Bhanudas Sopan Bhosale- the first informant, his wife-Sujata, brothers Sanjay and PW6-Narhari and others had gone to their native village Jawale, Tal.Khandala, District Satara. At that time the informant’s mother-Narmada complained that on 17^th July 1997, Accused No.1 and his wife-Accused No.4 Usha, abused her. Therefore, PW1 went to the house of Accused No.1 around 7:30 p.m. and asked as whether Abba @ Accused No.1 was at home and inquired as to why the accused were abusing his mother. The Accused No.4 replied that she would call the Accused No.1. Hence, PW1 stayed there. But at that time the Accused Nos.1 to 3 came there armed with sticks and Accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted to PW1 on his back by means of the sticks. Therefore, PW1’s father-Sopan Bhosale, brothers Sanjay and PW6 came there. But Accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted them by means of sticks and hands. Meanwhile, PW1’s mother, his wife- Sujata and sister-in-law Shalan came there to intervene. However, Accused Nos.4 to 6 manhandled them and Accused No.6 assaulted PW1’s father by means of a footwear. Therefore, PW1 lodged an oral report (Exh.45) with Khandala police station, District Satara.

5) Police registered the said oral report at FIR (Exh.45) at C.R.No.83 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’). During investigation, police referred the injured for their medical examination, recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.51) and PW9 PSI Pathare arrested the accused persons. One stick each was seized from Accused Nos.2 and 3 when they produced said sticks before the police on 20^th July 1997 vide seizure panchnama (Exh.69). One stick was seized from Accused No.1 under panchnama (Exh.55) when he produced the same on 22^nd July 1997. On completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet adding the offence under Section 37 (1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

6) The learned Magistrate of the trial Court framed charge (Exh.19) of the offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 148, 323, 504 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 37 (1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with Section 149 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication.

7) To prove the charge, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. However, PW2-Rangrao Bhosale, panch to seizure of stick from Accused No.1; PW5-Hanmant Bhosale and PW7-Shivaji Aburao Satale, both panch to the seizure of sticks from the Accused Nos.2 and 3, turned hostile to the prosecution. They were cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. but nothing fruitful could be elicited from their cross-examination. Therefore, their testimony is not worthy of discussion.

8)