Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah And Ors vs Sharad Ambadas Anbhule And Ors on 24 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:15867
{1} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
(through Karjat Police Station,
District Ahmednagar. ....Appellant
Versus
1. Sharad Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 22 yrs., Occu.:
2. Suman Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 45 yrs.,
3. Parshuram Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 22 yrs., r/o. Ghumari, Tq.Karjat,
District - Ahmednagar. ....Respondents
(Ori. Accused)
.....
APP for Appellant : Mr.S.M.Ganchari
Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.B.Rajebhosale
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 409 OF 2005
Santosh s/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 23 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Ghumari, Tq.Karjat,
District Ahmednagar. ....Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. Sharad s/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 25 yrs., Occu.: Agril.
2. Suman w/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 48 yrs.,
{2} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
3. Parshuram s/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 25 yrs., Occu.: Agril,
All above R/o. Ghumari, Tq.Karjat,
District - Ahmednagar.
4. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents
(Respondent nos.1 to 3
Ori. accused)
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Z.H.Farooqui h/f. Mr.N.V.Gaware
Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.B.Rajebhosale
APP for Respondent no.4 : Mr.S.M.Ganachari
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 13 JUNE, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24 JUNE, 2025
JUDGMENT :-
1. State hereby takes exception to the judgment and order dated 07-06-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Karjat, District Ahmednagar, in RTC No.100 of 2002 thereby acquitting present respondent nos.1 to 3 from charges under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF PROSECUTION CASE
2. On 12-10-2002, Santosh Ambadas Unbhule, his father and mother were harvesting Bajra crop at around 12:30 Noon. In the backdrop of objection of grazing cattle taken by informant and his {3} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 mother to accused nos.1, 2 and 3, accused persons came armed with sticks. They mounted assault informant and his father, who sustained injuries. Therefore, informant Santosh lodged report at Karjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar, giving rise to registration of crime bearing no.145 of 2002.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and all three accused persons were made to face trial before the learned JMFC, Karjat vide RTC No.100 of 2002 wherein prosecution adduced evidence of in all seven witnesses.
After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both the sides, learned JMFC held that prosecution version and its evidence is doubtful and thereby extended benefit to the accused and ultimately acquitted them by above judgment. Precisely feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, both State as well as original complainant preferred appeal as well as revision application respectively.
SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellant State :
3. Learned APP pointed out that here informant PW1 Santosh, his father PW2 Ambadas were assaulted by accused persons for {4} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 preventing them from grazing cattle. That, in such backdrop, accused nos.1, 2 and 3 allegedly came armed with sticks, stones and they also used chilli powder. According to learned APP, informant PW1 Santosh and his father PW2 Ambadas as well as his mother PW4 Laxmibai, who was also party to occurrence, have deposed before the Court narrating the occurrence. That, they all are consistent on material part of assault and occurrence. That, there was use of sticks to inflict injury to PW2 Ambadas. That, he was examined by medical expert. That, such Medical Officer PW6 Dr.Shinde, who examined and treated PW2 Ambadas has stepped in witness box and he has deposed regarding treatment given to injured and has also issued medical certificate. Therefore, according to learned APP, there is more than convincing and clinching evidence. That, there was eye witness account, who had seen PW2 Ambadas suffering from injury and marking presence of accused persons. Therefore, there was support from independent witness. However, such evidence has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. That, prosecution case has been disbelieved without assigning proper reasons. That, articles were seized from the spot. But the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the testimonies and also failed to apply correct law. That, injured witness account has been disbelieved {5} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 on the grounds of inconsistent evidence, omissions and contradictions. Therefore, learned APP seeks indulgence by allowing appeal.
On behalf of accused / respondent nos.1 to 3 :
4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 would submit that learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence. That, there was previous enmity. That, the story of informant was not finding support from his own father and mother. That, he and his father are not consistent regarding the very occurrence, rendering it doubtful. That, articles shown to be seized are not proved as Pancha did not support and therefore, only on medical evidence, case cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out that in this case, learned trial Judge has extended benefit of doubt and therefore, for above reasons, he seeks dismissal of appeal.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on the decisions in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., 2008 ALL MR (cri) 2873 (S.C.); State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, 2004 Cri.L.J., 4886; Smt.Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana, 2003 Cri.L.J., 2319 and Mani Ram and others v. State of U.P., 1994 AIR SCW 2298.
{6} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
5. In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in all seven witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as under :
PW1 Santosh Ambadas Anbhule is informant. At exh.24, he deposed as under :
"(1) Suman Ambadas Anbule is my step mother. Sharad is my step brother. So also Parshuram is my step brother. My father has two wives. My mother is the first wife of my father. 7 acres of land is recorded in the name of my father, and 7 acres of land is recorded in my mother. 2 acre land is recorded in my name.
At relevant time of incidence, my step mother and brother were residing in the field.
(2) The incident occurred prior to about 1 year. Prior two days of the incident, there were quarrel between myself and my mother and accused in respect of grass fodder provided to cattles of other persons. At the time of that quarrel prior to 2-3 days of step mother quarreled with my father. At the time of incidence, accused persons came in the field which is in the name of my father, at that time, my father and myself harvesting bajra crop. Accused persons beat my father and myself with the help of wooden sticks, stones, and they also used chilly powder. Because of that my father objected accused persons, to cultivate the land in the name of my mother with the help of tractor. Because of that accused no.1 to 3 beat me and my father with the help of stick. Because of beating given {7} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 by stick, I sustained bleeding injury on my head. My father was also beaten by accused persons. Malhari, Chandrabhan Anbhule came there and pacified the quarrel. My mother was present there. My step mother caught hold of hairs of my mother, thrown her on ground, and beat her. After pacifying the quarrel, accused persons threatened us that they will take revenge though we are saved this time. After the incidence, I visited Mirajgaon o/p. of police and lodged complaint against accused persons."
PW2 Ambadas Sonaji Anbhule is father of informant. At exh.26, he deposed as under :
"Incident occurred on 12/10/2002, at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning. At relevant time, cattles were grazing. Accused no.I had tied those cattles for the purpose of grazing which were belonging to Balu Chandrabhan Anbhule. My first wife Laxmi told accused no.1 to remove those cattles from that place as our cattles will feed on that grass. Because of that there was scuffle between Santosh and accused no.1 to 3. I was present to my home. I was rushed alongwith Hira Ganpat Anbhule on the spot. Accused no.2 stated that beat us. At that time, I was not beaten. But later on accused no.1 beat me with the help of stick on my head in my field, and thrown chilly powder in my eyes. Because of assault by stick, there was a bleeding Injury on my head. Accused no.1 caught hold of my private Part and squeezed it. Accused no.2 beat my first wife Laxmibai at that time. Then accused no.3 beat Santosh with the help of stick and stone on his head. At that time Malhari Chandrabhan Annule came there, pacified quarrel and then took me to PHC Mirajgaon., on {8} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 motor-cycle. I was referred to Ahmednagar for further treatment, so I was taken to Dr.Deshpande's Hopital at Nagar. Police recorded my statement on the next day of incident in the hospital when I was bedded there. Muddemal article 'A' 'B' 'C' now shown to me are the same used in the crime. Accused before the court are the same."
PW3 Malhari Chandrabhan Anbhule is acquaintance of PW2 Ambadas. At exh.27, he deposed as under :
"(1) I know Ambadas Anbhule and accused persons and Santosh. I am r/o.Ghumari - Amdadas Anbule has two wives.
Santosh is son of Ambadas begotten from his first wife. Accused no.1 and 3 are sons of accused no.2 begotten from Ambadas. Ambadas had allotted some of his lands in the name of accused no.1 & 3. "I heard hue and cry from the spot of incidence, so I rushed toward it. The incident occurred at about 12.00 to 1.00 p.m. in the noon. I rushed towards accused nos.1 and 3. Ambadas and accused persons abusing each other. when I reach spot of incidence, I noticed that Ambadas was having bleeding injury, so I took him to hospital at Mirajgaon. At the relevant time, bajra crop was present in the field, where spot οf incidence is situated. I do not know the reason why the quarrels were going on between the parties. Accused persons are present before court to whom I can identify. Police had recorded my statement."
PW4 Laxmibai Ambadas Anbhule is mother of informant. At exh.28, she deposed as under :
{9} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 "(1) I myself is residing with my husband at village Ghumari. Our house is situated in vasti. Santosh is my son. Accused no.2 is second wife of my husband. Accused no.1 & 3 are sons of my husband begotten from accused no.2. The incident has occurred prior to 1/2 to 2 years, at about 12.00 to 1.00 in the afternoon. My house is in field. At the relevant time, we were present in our house. At relevant time, my husband, my son and myself were harvesting bajra crop. Accused no.1 to 3 came there in the field. They thrown chilly powder in our eyes. Accused persons beat myself, my husband and son with the help of wooden rod. Malhari Chandrabhan Anbhule was present in the vicinity, came there. He pacified quarrel and took us to PHC at Mirajgaon. I was discharged, however my son Santosh was retained in the hospital. while my husband was referred to Civil Hospital Ahmednagar for further treatment. Head of my husband was fractured at 3 places. The blood was oozing out of it. The blood was oozed upto Nagar. My son lodged complaint against accused persons. As we all are injured, firstly we were taken to hospital and then complaint was lodged. Police has recorded my statement in connection with the offence. Accused persons are present before Court. I can identify them all. The three wooden rod now shown to me are the same used by accused persons. Each accused was holding one. They are already at Article No. 'A', 'B', 'C."
PW5 Gorakh Vithoba Anbhule is Pancha. However, he did not support prosecution case.
{10} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 PW6 Ajay Bhikaji Shinde is the Medical Officer, who examined PW2 Ambadas, father of informant.
"(1) On 12/10/2002, I have examined injured namely Ambadas Sonaji Anbhule and found injuries on his person -
1. CLW on right parietal region, 5 inch x ½ inch upto bone deep, excessive bleeding present.
2. C.L.W.. on central part of skull 5 inch x 1/2 inch upto bone deep, excessive bleeding present, patient unconscious about 1 hour, bleeding through right ear pulse 90 per minute, B.P. 100 x 70 mm of SD.
3. Human bite on right scapular region, 6 teeth marks in, abrasion around it.
4. Human bite below left scapular region 4 teeth marks in, abrasion around it.
All these injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Age of the injury within 24 hours. Injury no.1 to 4 are grievous in nature. Patient referred to Civil Hospital Ahmednagar for further treatment. MLC now shown to me is the same, its contents are correct, it bears my signature, it is placed at Exh.36.
(2) I have also examined injured Santosh Ambadas Anbhule, and found following injuries -
1. Swelling of left hand tenderness present,
2. human bite in between both scapular region 7 teeth marks in, abrasion around it.
3. Human bite below left scapular region, 5 teeth marks in, abrasion around it.
{11} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
4. Human bite in right auxiliary region, 4 teeth marks in, abrasion around it.
5. Human bite on right shoulder joint, 3 teeth marks in, abrasion around it.
All these injuries caused by hard and blunt object. All injuries are within 24 hours. Injury no.1 is simple in nature, and injury no.2 to 5 are grievous in nature. I have given O.P.D. treatment.
MLC now shown to me is the same, it bears my signature, its contents are correct, it is placed at Exh. 37. (3) In my opinion, injuries no.1 & 2 in Exh. 36, are possible by assault by stone and stick."
PW7 Parasram Durgaji Chattise is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and after gathering sufficient evidence, filed chargesheet against the accused.
6. Here, crucial witnesses for prosecution are informant PW1 Santosh, injured PW2 Ambadas and PW4 Laxmibai. Their substantive evidence is already reproduced in the aforesaid paragraphs. Now, it would be also desirable to take note of the answers given by them while facing cross-examination.
PW1 Santosh, informant admitted that he cannot assign reason {12} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 why in his report before Police there is no reference about his injured father being hit by stone. This is material omission. Rest of the omissions are not material. Further as regards throwing of chilli powder is concerned, even though stated by this witness in his evidence, this does not find place in the report. He had admitted that relations between them and accused were strained. It needs to be noted that according to him, the incident of assault occurred when he and his father both were harvesting crop in the field and at that time, it is alleged that accused came there. He is very categorical that all accused persons beat him and his father by means of wooden sticks and stone and also used chilli powder, but this is omnibus and general allegation. Roles of three accused are not prescribed.
PW2 Ambadas while in cross-examination has admitted his narrations about accused no.1 bringing cattle of Balu Chandrabhan in their land for grazing and Laxmibai, his wife, asking accused no.1 to remove cattle, and he and Hira rushed to the spot. However, such narrations are not finding place in the report. Almost all suggestions including relations with accused to be strained are admitted by this witness. However, what is peculiar feature of his evidence is that he has stated that when he was in the house, that time, there was scuffle between his son Santosh and accused nos.1, 2 and 3 and therefore, {13} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 he rushed from the house to reach the spot. Hence, the version regarding starting of the occurrence, about he and his son to be together harvesting the crop, as stated by informant son, is not coming from his mouth.
This witness in his examination-in-chief, has stated that accused no.1 alone beat him and only accused no.1 threw chilli powder in his eyes. He went ahead and stated that he was caught hold by accused no.1 and his private part was squeezed. However, such is not the version of the his son i.e. informant. This witness has allegedly stated about beating to his son by means of stick and stone, which is not the version of informant also.
As regards to evidence of PW4 Laxmibai is concerned, she too has stated about accused nos.1 to 3 coming to their field, throwing chilli powder in their eyes, accused beating her husband and son by means of wooden rod.
ANALYSIS
7. Therefore, apparently witnesses though claim to be either injured or eye witnesses, are not consistent. On appreciation of evidence of independent witness PW3 Malhari, it emerges from his evidence that he has not seen the actual occurrence of assault as according to him, when he heard hue and cry, he reached spot and at {14} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 that time, he merely saw accused nos.1 to 3 and PW2 Ambadas abusing each other. He claims to have noticed Ambadas suffering bleeding injury. He has not stated about actual assault by any of the accused by any stick, stone or about throwing chilli powder. He also does not speak about any of the accused armed with stick, stone, and carrying chilli powder. Therefore, from the tenor of cross- examination of informant PW1 Santosh, injured PW2 Ambadas and PW4 Laxmibai, it is emerging that their versions are apparently inconsistent.
8. No doubt medical evidence shows that PW1 Santosh and PW2 Ambadas are examined by Medical Officer, and PW2 Ambadas had suffered bleeding injuries, however, actually who amongst accused nos.1, 2 and 3 is responsible for bleeding injury is not coming on record.
PW6 Dr.Shinde, who examined PW2 Ambadas, has certified noticing bite marks, but neither informant PW1 Santosh nor his parents PW2 Ambadas and PW4 Laxmibai have stated about any of the accused indulging in the act of biting.
The aspect of previous enmity has been admitted by the witnesses like PW2 Ambadas and PW4 Laxmibai. Above discussed {15} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005 material is proved through the Investigating Officer. Unfortunately, seizure of articles is not proved as Pancha did not support prosecution.
9. I have gone through the citations relied by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 on the point of principles to be borne in mind while dealing with appeal against acquittal. In the light of principles enumerated in the case of Ghurey Lal (supra), more particularly, in paragraph nos.73 (1), (2) and (3) and in view of findings of this Court in aforesaid paragraphs, on re-appreciation of evidence, as like learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that accused are entitled for benefit of doubt as prosecution witnesses are not consistent. Therefore, no case being made out by proving it beyond reasonable doubt, this Court refrains from interfering by reversing acquittal.
10. Even though learned counsel for informant / revisionist agitated in revision application that there is improper appreciation and analysis by learned trial Judge, for above reasons, said submission also has no substance. Accordingly, following order is passed :
{16} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Revision Application is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT