1/14 APEAL 561-98.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 561 of 1998

Mangesh Nanda Khedekar

.. Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.. Respondents

…

Mr.Swaraj S. Jadhav for the appellant.

Mr.Y.Y. Dabake, APP for the State.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

RESERVED ON : 6^th APRIL 2021

PRONOUNCED : 28^th APRIL 2021

JUDGMENT:-

1

By the present Appeal, the appellant has questioned

the judgment and order dated 20^th May 1998 passed by the Addl.

Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No.62 of 1997.

The Appeal is admitted on 29^th June 1998 and the appellant was

released on bail.

2

Advocate Shri Swaraj Jadhav was appointed by the

High Court Legal Aid Services Committee since the appellant

remained unrepresented.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr.Y.Y. Dabake, learned APP for the State.

Tilak

2/14 APEAL 561-98.doc

3

One Ramchandra Rama Mahadik working as

watchman in the Wild Life Sanctuary on daily wages reported of

an incident dated 8^th February 1997 when he was on duty along

with two other watchman being Bhaskar and Kiran. He report

that while he was on round of the Sanctuary, he noticed mark of

teak-log being pulled and on tracking the same, they reached the

sea-shore at Danda, where four persons were cutting the log. As

per the complainant, they managed to catch hold of two persons.

On probing, they disclosed to be residents of Surale village.

When they were interrogating the said persons, the accused/

appellant Mangesh arrived at the spot and chided them for their

act and asked to release the persons. On their refusal to do so till

their superiors arrived at the spot, the complainant allege that the

accused Mangesh gave a strong blow by his elbow on left portion

of his face, as a result of which one tooth on the right side got

uprooted and fell down, and caused bleeding in his gums. This

incident was reported to have taken place at 11.15 am and after

assaulting the complainant, the accused and the other two persons

fled from the spot. The complainant then reached Murud Forest

Office and thereafter, proceeded to Phansad Wild Life Sanctuary

office. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged with Murud police station

at 17.35 hrs, on the very same day. Offence punishable under

Sections 353 and 333 of the IPC was invoked and the present

appellant was arraigned as the accused. He was charged for

Tilak

3/14 APEAL 561-98.doc

voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the complainant while

discharging his duty as a public servant with an intention to

prevent or deter him from discharge his duty. On the appellant

pleading not guilty, he was made to face the trial, by committing

the case to the Court of Sessions at Raigad for proving the charge

under Section 333 of IPC.

4

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution examined seven witnesses during course of the trial.

Dr.Maqbool Kokate attached to Fatima Begum Hospital at

Murud as Medical Officer (PW 1) who had examined the

complainant on being referred to him by the Murud police station

at 6.30 p.m is examined as PW 1. He report of the following

injury on the complainant.

“A dislodgement of upper four tooth fore on left

side with a fresh bleeding from the said injury”

The injury certificate issued by PW 1 (Exhibit-9) in

the column of age of injury describe the injury to be fresh and the

nature of injury is classified as ‘Grievous injury’. The injury is

opined to have caused on account of a blow with hard and blunt

object. The Medical Officer clarify as to what is a fresh injury. He

depose that fresh injury means injury within 2 to 3 hours. He

also admit that a dislodgement of the tooth is possible in ca