Judgment.Cr.Apeal.545.2003.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 545 OF 2003

The State of Maharashtra

Appellant

(Orig. Complainant)

Versus

Yogesh Shivnath Ghadge,

Age : 20 yrs, R/o. Lallgun,

Tal. Khatav, Dist. Satara

Respondent

(Orig Accused)

***

Mr H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Appellant – State.

Mr H.S. Venegavkar a/w Mr. Ajay Bhise for the Respondent

***

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATED

: JANUARY 12, 2021.

JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J)

1.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the V

Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 55/2002, dated

09^th January, 2003, whereby respondent herein (Original Accused) was

acquitted of the charge for committing offences punishable under

Sections 307 of the India Penal Code (for short “IPC”), the present

Criminal Appeal is preferred by the Appellant – State of Maharashtra.

2.

Learned APP appearing for the Appellant – State vehemently

Umesh Malani

PAGE 1 OF 14

Judgment.Cr.Apeal.545.2003.doc

submitted that the prosecution through version of eye witness, and more

particularly, the injured eye witness, the medical evidence and other

supporting evidence in the form of various panchanamas such as spot

and seizure panchanama etc established its case. Learned APP further

submitted that learned Trial Judge while appreciating the evidence

committed serious error in appreciating the evidence in proper

perspective more particularly, the evidence of eye witnesses. Thus,

learned APP prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal

by allowing the Criminal Appeal.

3.

Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. Venegavkar appearing for

the Respondent – Orig. Accused submitted that no error is committed by

the learned trial Judge while appreciating the evidence. Learned Counsel,

Mr. Venegavkar further submitted that there were material discrepancies

on account of incident in the version of so called eye witnesses. Mr.

Venegavkar then submitted that the version of injured witnesses itself is

full of omissions. There is not consistency in so far as the alleged assault

as well as the place of incident is concerned. It is also submitted by

learned Counsel Mr Venegavkar that the theory of prosecution for

alleged recovery of weapon itself is in the cloud of doubt. He further

Umesh Malani

PAGE 2 OF 14

Judgment.Cr.Apeal.545.2003.doc

submitted that the prosecution evidence itself show that there was an

enmity that the injured witnesses himself was carrying grudge against the

accused on account of sharing the well water and enmity being double

edged weapon thus, the version of injured witness cannot be accepted as

a complete truth. Learned Counsel Mr. Venegavkar further submitted

that the medical evidence only show the injuries suffered by the witness

but by itself it cannot connect the accused as an author of the crime. It is

also vehemently submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Venegavkar that the

prosecution for the reasons best known to them failed to examine

important witness who was accompanied the injured witness at the time

of incident and withholding such an important witness also creates

suspicion over the case of prosecution. Thus, learned Counsel, Mr

Venegavkar prayed for dismissal of appeal.

4.

With the assistance of learned Counsel appearing for the

respective parties, we have gone through the record.

5.

We may now refer to the relevant and material evidence

brought before the Trial Court and asses the same for deciding the

present appeal.

Umesh Malani

PAGE 3 OF 14

Judgment.Cr.Apeal.545.2003.doc

6.

As the prosecution case unfold through the complaint /

report lodged at the instance of Ashok Ghadge (PW 8), we may refer to

this witness firstly. Though, this witness is the person who set the

investigating agency in motion by lodging the report, he is not

supporting the case of prosecution and was