Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Even if we brush aside the First Information Report which has been lodged by accused Pratik Kopulwar as counterblast yet what we cannot forget is, the statement of the witnesses those have been recorded by police in the present case those witnesses are stating against the informant. Some of the witnesses are police officers / constables on duty and rather they are giving a different picture that the quarrel was picked up by the informant himself and he had assaulted the present appellants, the informant had taken the receipt of the sand forcibly from Pratik Kopulwar. Further witness 15 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1 Sumit Pandit, Ajay Mujmule have stated that many people who had gathered at the spot, were recording the incident in their mobile. Witness Pratik Kamble himself had torn his T-Shirt and the informant as well as Pratik Kamble had abused appellant Pratik Kopulwar. These statements have been recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that, the witness Shrinivas Phad had done the video shooting of the incident and he had submitted the mobile to police. The data has been taken on compact disk and the hash value of the same has been taken. That means, whatever the witnesses are saying appears to be supported by the electronic evidence also. Under such circumstance this Court holds that, there is no prima facie case made out so as to infer that there is bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In view of Prithviraj Chavan v. Union of India, in Writ Petition No.1015 of 2018, decided by Hon'ble apex Court on 10-02-2020, following observations have been made: