Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Akola vs Dayaram Shriram Pote And Another on 30 May, 2017

Author: Z.A.Haq

Bench: Z.A.Haq

 Judgment                                               1                                  wp698.03.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2003

 State of Maharashtra through
 Police Station Officer, 
 Police Station Civil Lines, 
 Akola. 
                                                                             ....  APPELLANT.
                                         //  VERSUS //

 1. Dayaram S/o. Shriram Pote,
    aged 51 years, Occ. : Business,

 2. Pravin Dayaram Pote,
    aged about 18 years, 
    Both R/o. Amrut Nagar, 
    Akola. 
                                                   .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                     .
 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri Neeraj Patil, A.P.P. for Appellant. 
 None for the respondents. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
                               DATED   : MAY 30, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT : 

1. None appears for the respondents. Heard Shri Neeraj Patil, A.P.P. for the appellant/ State.

2. The State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 447, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is :

::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2017 00:16:09 :::

Judgment 2 wp698.03.odt Dattatraya Eknath Wawage lodged report with the Police Station that on 29th April, 2001 at about 6.00 p.m. when he returned to his house from market and was parking his cycle, both the accused entered the compound of his house and started beating him by giving blows of fists, they twisted his fingers, abused his wife and threatened to kill her and thereafter both the accused had gone to the terrace of their house and had thrown bricks which hit wife of the complainant over her head because of which she sustained bleeding injuries. The complainant alleged that the wife and daughter of accused No.1 Dayaram also hurled abuses. After the report was lodged the investigation was conducted and chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate framed and explained charges to the accused and as the accused did not accept the guilt, conducted trial. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove commission of the crime by the accused and acquitted the accused.

4. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P., I have examined the record and have gone through the impugned judgment. I find that the learned Magistrate has exhaustively dealt with the evidence and the material on record. The learned Magistrate, after examining the evidence of P.W. 2- Dattatraya Eknathrao Wawage (complainant) has found that his evidence does not inspire confidence.

::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2017 00:16:09 :::

Judgment 3 wp698.03.odt

5. The prosecution has examined P.W. 3-Jyoti wife of Dattatraya Wawage. The learned Magistrate has recorded that there are material omissions and contradictions in the statement given by her earlier and in her evidence and they are unexplained. The prosecution has examined P.W.-5- Madhukar Ghaiwat (Investigating Officer) who had admitted that though he had seen the brick by which wife of the complainant was hit lying on the spot, he has not seized the brick. Again there is no explanation for this lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate has further recorded that this witness i.e. Investigating Officer has admitted that there were some omissions in recording the statement of P.W. 3-Jyoti wife of Dattatraya Wawage. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. P.W. 6-Balu Dattatraya More, P.W. 7-Pralhad Take and P.W. 1-Suresh Sonappa Parmar are chance witnesses and their evidence is of no useful purpose to the prosecution.

6. After going through the impugned judgment and the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the learned Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. The learned A.P.P. has not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned judgment which necessitates interference by this Court.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE RRaut..

::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2017 00:16:09 :::