Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1058 (BOM)

Shaikh Khaled Baba Miya v. State of Maharashtra

2010-07-27

SHRIHARI P.DAVARE

body2010
Judgment : The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence, rendered by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.144 of 1996 on 18-5-1998, convicting the appellant under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be summarized as under :- It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant/original accused, namely Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh Baba Miya was absconded under C.R. No.15 of 1993 pertaining to Beed City police station for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. During the intervening night between 12-1-1993 and 13-1-1993, the first informant Police Constable PW6 Sayed Khadir was doing patrolling duty along with PSI PW7 Sangram Sangle attached to Beed City police station, PSI Gaikwad, S.R.P. Police Constable PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, S.R.P. Police Head Constable PW3 Bhagwan Aute, Police Constable Bhausaheb Gondkar, one N. S. Pawar and some S.R.P. Jawans in Beed City, and when they went to Daudpura area at Beed, P.S.I. Gaikwad informed them that absconded accused in C.R. No.15 of 1993 i.e. appellant herein had hidden himself in his house. Accordingly, all the aforesaid police personnel and S.R.P. Jawans went to the said house at about 2.00 a.m. on the date of incident and surrounded it and Police Head Constable Niwage, PW4 Bhausaheb Gondkar and PW7 PSI Sangram Sangle entered into the said house, but perceiving the presence of police personnel near his house, the appellant/accused immediately jumped from the wall of his house and started running away therefrom. Hence, PW6 Sayed Khadir and PW2 SRP Police Constable Pandurang Nalegaonkar chased the accused. However, the accused fell while running away. Thereupon, the first informant PW6 Sayed Khadir caught hold of him and by that time PW2 Nalegaonkar also arrived there. However, the appellant/accused took bite on the left hand palm of PW6 Sayed Khadir and twisted his testicles and thereupon PW6 Sayed Khadir raised shouts. Moreover, PW2 Nale-gaonkar also caught hold of the accused, but the accused took bite on the right hand palm of PW2 Nalegaonkar and twisted his testicles also and thereupon he also raised shouts. However, the appellant/accused took bite on the left hand palm of PW6 Sayed Khadir and twisted his testicles and thereupon PW6 Sayed Khadir raised shouts. Moreover, PW2 Nale-gaonkar also caught hold of the accused, but the accused took bite on the right hand palm of PW2 Nalegaonkar and twisted his testicles also and thereupon he also raised shouts. Thereafter, S.R.P. Head Constable Bhagwan Aute and S.R.P. Jawan N. S. Pawar came there and caught hold of the accused and the accused caused injuries to them also and gave threats to kill the police personnel. However, all the police and S.R.P. personnel caught hold of the accused collectively and placed him into police jeep and took him to Beed City police station. 3. Since the first informant PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 S.R.P. Police Constable Pandurang Nalegaonkar and other police personnel had sustained the injuries, they were referred to the General Hospital, Beed for medical examination and treatment. PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaonkar examined the said patient and gave necessary medical treatment to them and he also issued medical certificates of the said patients, which are produced at Exhs. 18 to 21 respectively. Thereafter, the first informant PW6 Sayed Khadir returned to the Beed City police station and lodged the report against the accused under C.R. No.22 of 1993 on 13-1-1993 at 1.30 p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. PW7 P.S.I. Sangram Sangle carried out the investigation of said C.R. No.22 of 1993 and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh. 28) in presence of Panch PW1 Bharat Naik and Limbaji Bidave on 13-1-1993. He also recorded statements of witnesses on 13-1-1993 and 14-1-1993. The appellant/accused was earlier arrested under C.R. No.15 of 1993 and he was remanded to judicial custody in respect of that crime. He was further detained under National Security Act. Moreover, PW7 P.S.I. Sangle collected the injury certificates of injured policemen and S.R.P. Jawans, which are marked at Exhs. 18 to 21 respectively as aforesaid. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. However, since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the said case was committed to the Court of Session, Beed. Learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed framed the charge (Exh. However, since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the said case was committed to the Court of Session, Beed. Learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed framed the charge (Exh. 7) against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 332 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 15-1-1998, but the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Hence, to substantiate the said charges, the prosecution examined inasmuch as seven witnesses as mentioned below :- PW1 Bharat Balbhimrao Naik, panch to spot panchanama Exh. 28 - turned hostile. PW2 Pandurang Mukundrao Nalegaonkar, injured Police Constable from S.R.P. victim. PW3 Bhagwan Vitthal Aute, injured S.R.P. Head Constable - victim. PW4 Bhausaheb Dadoa Gondkar, who accompanied with the raiding party. PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaonkar, who was Medical Officer on duty on the relevant date and who examined PW2 Nalegaonkar, PW3 Bhagwan Aute and PW6 Sayed Khadir and issued medical certificates to them which are produced at Exhs. 18 to 21 respectively. PW6 Sayed Khadir Sayed Hamid, injured - complainant - victim. PW7 P.S.I. Sangram Sangle - investigating officer. 5. The defence of the accused is of total denial and he submitted that he has been implicated in this case falsely, and therefore, claimed to be innocent. 6. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him under Sections 307, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced therefor as aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 18-5-1998 convicting and sentencing the appellant, as aforestated, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, questioning the correctness and legality of the said judgment and order and prayed for quashment thereof. 8. In order to deal with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent, it is necessary to advert to the material evidence adduced and produced on record by the prosecution. 9. 8. In order to deal with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent, it is necessary to advert to the material evidence adduced and produced on record by the prosecution. 9. In the said context, coming to the deposition of PW6 complainant and victim PW6 Sayed Khadir who stated in his deposition that he was attached to Beed City police station in the month of January, 1993 and was on patrolling duty during the intervening night between 12-1-1993 and 13-1-1993 along with PW7 PSI Sangram Sangle, PW2 S.R.P. Police Constable Pandurang Nalegaonkar, N.S. Pawar and other police personnel of City police station, Beed and at 1.30 a.m. in the said mid night, P.S.I. Gaikwad came to know that absconded accused in C.R. No.15 of 1993 was at his house at Daudpura, Beed, and hence, all the said police personnel went towards the said house and surrounded it and P.S.I. Gaikwad, PW7 Sangle entered into the said house. The name of the absconded accused was Khaled i.e. appellant herein. Sensing the presence of police personnel near his house, the accused Khaled took jump from the wall of the house and fled away. On seeing the accused running away, PW6 Syed Khadir chased the accused and PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and S.R.P. Jawans followed him. However, the accused Khaled fell on the ground as his toe stubbed against a stone at a distance of about 200 meters from his house. Hence, PW6 Sayed Khadir caught hold of him, but the appellant/accused twisted his testicles and took bite to his left hand palm. Thereupon PW6 Sayed Khadir raised shouts. 10. Thereafter PW6 Sayed Khadir stated that PW2 Nalegaonkar also caught hold of the accused, but accused twisted his testicles also and took bite on his right hand palm. Thereupon PW2 Nalegaonkar also raised shouts. The accused gave threats to kill them. Hence, the other police personnel who had arrived at the house of the accused also rushed to them and they caught hold of the accused and boarded him in the police jeep and took the accused to Beed City police station. 11. Thereupon PW2 Nalegaonkar also raised shouts. The accused gave threats to kill them. Hence, the other police personnel who had arrived at the house of the accused also rushed to them and they caught hold of the accused and boarded him in the police jeep and took the accused to Beed City police station. 11. PW6 Sayed Khadir further stated in his deposition that PW2 Nalegaonkar as well as S.R.P. Jawan Pawar and PW6 Sayed Khadir were immediately referred to the hospital at Beed for medical examination and treatment and PW6 Sayed Khadir further stated that after taking medical treatment, he lodged the report against the accused in Beed City police station, which is marked Exh. 26. He also identified the accused in the Court. 12. In cross-examination, he stated that he lodged the report (Exh. 26) after his examination by the Medical Officer. He stated that there is a police outpost in the premises of the District Hospital, Beed. He further stated that since he had sustained injuries, he lodged the report before going to the District Hospital, Beed. He further stated that as the in charge police personnel of police outpost at District Hospital, Beed was not available, he lodged report in the police station. He also stated that he was admitted in the hospital, but he left the hospital for lodging the report Exh. 26 and thereafter again he was admitted in the hospital. He further stated that he had gone to lodge the report Exh. 26 to the police station after taking permission from the Medical Officer. 13. An omission in respect of surrounding the house of the accused by police personnel in the F.I.R. Exh. 26 has been elicited in the cross-examination. As well as the fact that on seeing the presence of police personnel, the accused took jump from wall of the house also amounted to omission in his F.I.R. 14. PW6 Sayed Khadir categorically stated in his testimony that he saw the accused taking jump from the wall of the house and running away from his colleagues from the distance of 5 to 10 paces. He further stated that he did not know whether there was any quarrel between Wajid and the accused. 15. PW6 Sayed Khadir categorically stated in his testimony that he saw the accused taking jump from the wall of the house and running away from his colleagues from the distance of 5 to 10 paces. He further stated that he did not know whether there was any quarrel between Wajid and the accused. 15. Coming to the testimony of PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, wherein he stated that he was serving as S.R.P. constable at the relevant time and was on Bandobast duty along with PW6 Sayed Khadir, S.R.P. Constable Pawar and S.R.P. Head Constable PW3 Bhagwan Aute, and on 13-1-1993 he had gone with P.S.I. Gaikwad and one P.S.I. of local police station Beed to catch hold of accused person at Beed. He also stated that local police personnel were also the members of the raiding party and all of them went to the house of the accused and surrounded it and some police personnel entered into the said house at about 2.00 a.m. on 13-1-1993. However, the accused got down from the building and took jump with a view to run away. Thereupon PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar stated that PW6 Sayed Khadir started running behind him and caught hold of the accused. There scuffle took place between them. However, all of a sudden, PW6 Sayed Khadir raised shouts, and therefore, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar rushed towards the accused to caught hold of him. However, accused caught hold of testicles of PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and twisted them, and PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar sustained pains, and hence, he set free the accused, but the other associates caught hold of the accused. He further stated that accused gave threats to kill him, saying that, "Jinda Nahi Chhodunga"?. He further stated that he was referred to the District Hospital, Beed and was examined by the Medical Officer PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaon-kar. 16. During cross-examination suggestion was given to him that the person caught hold of by them on the date of incident was not the accused present before the Court, but same was denied by him. As regards the raid, he stated that he was not aware as to in which part of Beed city they were required to go for conducting the raid. He also stated that P.S.I. Gaikwad did not inform him the crime number under which the accused was to be apprehended. As regards the raid, he stated that he was not aware as to in which part of Beed city they were required to go for conducting the raid. He also stated that P.S.I. Gaikwad did not inform him the crime number under which the accused was to be apprehended. An omission has been elicited in the cross-examination in respect of the alleged threats given by the accused to PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, saying that, "Jinda Nahi Chhodunga"?. He further stated that accused has twisted his testicles by his right hand and scuffle between police constable PW6 Sayed Khadir and the accused continued for about two minutes. 17. That takes me to the testimony of S.R.P. Head Constable PW3 Bhagwan Vitthal Aute, wherein he stated that the incident took place during the intervening night between 12-1-1993 and 13-1-1993 at 2.00 a.m. when the local police and the staff members had gone to catch hold of an accused in Beed city. He stated that the local police personnel and S.R.P. personnel went to the house of the accused for raid and some of the local police personnel entered into his house, but accused came out and jumped down from the wall of the house and started running. He further stated that the local police constable PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar chased after him. However, the accused fell down while running at a distance of 100 to 200 feet, and accordingly, the local police personnel caught hold of the accused, but the accused took bite to his hand and twisted his testicles, and hence, he raised shouts and then PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar rushed to the accused, but the accused also took bite on the right hand of PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar as well as twisted his testicles and tried to run away. He further stated that he had a scuffle with the accused and due to the said scuffle he sustained injury to his right wrist. He further stated that other police personnel arrived there and all of them caught hold of the accused, who was trying to run away and brought him to Beed City police station. PW3 Bhagwan Aute was referred to the District Hospital, Beed for medical treatment. PW3 Bhagwan Aute identified the accused before the Court as the same person who was involved in the incident in question. 18. PW3 Bhagwan Aute was referred to the District Hospital, Beed for medical treatment. PW3 Bhagwan Aute identified the accused before the Court as the same person who was involved in the incident in question. 18. During cross-examination, he admitted that he stated the name of the area where they had gone on the date of incident, as well as he admitted that he cannot tell the location of the said area. He also stated that after the date of incident, he did not see the accused present before the Court, and consequently, stated that he was seeing the accused present in the Court for the first time after the date of incident. Suggestion was given to him that he is deposing falsely that the accused took bite to his hand as well as to the hand of local police personnel PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and twisted their testicles, but same was denied by him. He categorically stated in the cross-examination that the accused had taken bite to the right hand of PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, but could not tell as to on which hand of the local police personnel the accused took bite. He further stated that initially there was scuffle between the accused and the police constable and thereafter scuffle took place between PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and the accused. It was suggested to him that he is deposing falsely at the instance of PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, but he denied the same. 19. Turning to the deposition of PW4 Bhausaheb Gondkar, who also was one of the members of the raiding party, who stated that he accompanied with PW7 PSI Sangram Sangle and other police personnel went to the house of the accused at about 2.00 a.m. during the intervening night between 12-1-1993 and 13-1-1993 and surrounded the accused, but the accused perceived their presence near his house, and therefore, took jump from the wall of the house and started running away. Hence, PW6 Sayed Khadir and one S.R.P. personnel chased him and accused fell down at a distance of about 200 meters. Hence, PW6 Sayed Khadir caught hold of the accused, but the accused took bite to his left hand and twisted his testicles. Thereafter, accused was caught hold of by S.R.P. Police Constable PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, but accused also took bite to his hand and twisted his testicles also. Hence, PW6 Sayed Khadir caught hold of the accused, but the accused took bite to his left hand and twisted his testicles. Thereafter, accused was caught hold of by S.R.P. Police Constable PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, but accused also took bite to his hand and twisted his testicles also. Moreover, the accused had sustained injuries due to fall on the ground while running away, and the accused was shouting, "Mai Tumko Jinda Marunga, Chhodunga Nahi"?. He further stated that thereafter all the police personnel caught hold of the accused and boarded him into the police van and brought him to Beed City police station and he also identified the accused in the Court. 20. During cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by police personnel on 13-1-1993 and an omission was elicited in his cross-examination in respect of aforesaid threat given by the accused that, "Mai Tumko Jinda Marunga, Chhodunga Nahi"?. He further stated that he saw the accused when he took jump from the wall of his house. It was also suggested to him that he deposed falsely that the accused took bites on the hands of PW6 Sayed Khadir and PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, but same was denied by him. He categorically stated that the accused took bite on the left hand of PW2 Nalegaonkar. He further denied that accused has been involved in this case falsely at the instance of police Head Constable Wajed and police constable Salim. 21. Coming to the deposition of PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaonkar, who deposed that he was working as Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Beed on 13-1-1993 and he examined the patient, namely PW6 Sayed Khadir at about 3.30 a.m. on 13-1-1993 and found traumatic orchitis contusion of his left side testicle. The age of the said injury was within 12 hours of his examination. It was caused by hard object. It was simple in nature, but the said patient was admitted in Emergency ward. He also prepared injury certificate of the said patient, which is produced at Exh. 18. 22. He also stated that he examined Nagesh Shankar Pawar at 3.40 a.m. on 13-1-1993 and found abrasion over dorsal aspect of fore-finger of his left palm having 0.5 size, shape oblique, colour reddish. The said injury was simple in nature and probably caused by hard object within 12 hours of his examination. 18. 22. He also stated that he examined Nagesh Shankar Pawar at 3.40 a.m. on 13-1-1993 and found abrasion over dorsal aspect of fore-finger of his left palm having 0.5 size, shape oblique, colour reddish. The said injury was simple in nature and probably caused by hard object within 12 hours of his examination. He further stated that he prepared the injury certificate of the said patient, which is at Exh. 19. 23. He further stated that he examined PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar at 3.45 a.m. on 13-1-1993 and found following injuries on his person:- (1) Abrasion over right palm, dorsal aspect, size 0.5 c.m., having shape oblique, colour reddish and margin irregular. (2) Traumatic orchitis of left side testicle. He further stated that the nature of both the injuries was simple and those were caused by hard object within 12 hours of his examination. However, the said patient was admitted in emergency ward. Accordingly, he prepared the injury certificate of the said patient, which is produced at Exh. 20. PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaonkar further stated that he examined PW3 Bhagwan Aute at 3.50 a.m. on 13-1-1993 and found abrasion over his left palm, dorsal aspect, having size 0.5 c.m., colour reddish and shape oblique and the said injury was simple in nature caused within 12 hours of his examination. He further stated that he prepared the injury certificate of the said patient, which is produced at Exh. 21. 24. PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaonkar further stated in his deposition that traumatic orchitis contusions found on the testicles of PW6 Sayed Khadir and PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar as mentioned in injury certificates Exhs. 18 and 21 respectively, were possible by twisting of the testicles. He further stated that if the testicles are twisted forcefully, it may cause shock to the patient and would prove dangerous to his life. 25. During cross-examination, he stated that abrasion injuries mentioned in certificates Exhs. 19, 20 and 21 are possible if the part of the body is brushed against a hard substance. He also stated that colour of the injury gets changed after every six hours. As regards the injury on the person of PW6 Sayed Khadir, he categorically stated that the injury found on the person of PW6 Sayed Khadir as mentioned in certificate Exh. 18 is not possible if one of the legs is placed forcibly on the lower surface while walking. As regards the injury on the person of PW6 Sayed Khadir, he categorically stated that the injury found on the person of PW6 Sayed Khadir as mentioned in certificate Exh. 18 is not possible if one of the legs is placed forcibly on the lower surface while walking. He further stated that age of the injury can be ascertained from its colour. As regards the age of the injury of PW6 Sayed Khadir mentioned in the certificate Exh. 18, he stated that he mentioned the age of the said injury from the pains suffered by him. The suggestion was given to him that whenever there is twisting of testicles, there would be necessarily swelling thereto, but same was denied by him. He further stated that the injuries found on the testicles were possible by fall on hard substance. 26. On the background of the aforesaid material evidence, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that there is no evidence of independent witness adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the theory advanced by the prosecution against the appellant/accused and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police witnesses, and therefore, it is submitted that it would be hazardous to believe the testimonies of police witnesses and to base conviction on that basis against the appellant, since the possibility of implicating the accused in the said case falsely cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no prima facie evidence against the appellant/accused, since the prosecution has examined only police witnesses as mentioned herein above, and their testimonies cannot be construed as trustworthy testimonies, and hence, same cannot be relied upon to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 27. As regards the medical evidence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical certificates, Exh. 18 in respect of PW6 Sayed Khadir, Exh. 19 in respect of Nagesh Pawar, Exh. 20 in respect of PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and Exh. 21 in respect of PW3 Bhagwan Aute disclose that they sustained only simple injuries, and hence, the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by judgment and order rendered by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, on 18-5-1998 in Sessions Case No.144 of 1996 is erroneous and unsustainable, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside, acquitting the appellant herein. 28. 28. Shri S.D. Kaldate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered the said argument vehemently and submitted that the evidence of police witnesses cannot be brushed aside and discarded, since their testimonies are consistent, reliable and trustworthy. He stated that there are three injured/victim witnesses who have categorically deposed before the Court in respect of forcible act committed by the accused against them and their medical certificates also corroborate with each other in respect of the injuries sustained by them. It is also canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since there was secret information regarding presence of accused in his house when raid was effected at 2.00 a.m. during the intervening night between 12-1-1993 and 13-1-1993, as well as there was curfew imposed in the concerned area at the relevant time, and hence, no independent witness was available at the said odd hours, and therefore, only police witnesses were available at the time of occurrence of the incident and they have been examined, more particularly, the victim who sustained the injuries at the hand of the accused have been examined before the Court, and hence, their evidence is reliable and more trustworthy to base the conviction against the accused. It is also canvassed that the testimonies of police witnesses corroborate with each other and those are in consonance with the medical certificates on record, and therefore, there is no substance in the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial Judge and no perversity is found therein, and submitted that no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction. 29. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial Judge and no perversity is found therein, and submitted that no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction. 29. I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, on 18-5-1998 in Sessions Case No.144 of 1996; as well as scrutinized the oral and the documentary evidence on record; also perused the record and proceedings and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent anxiously, and I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, since PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and PW3 Bhagwan Aute have stepped into witness box and categorically stated the manner in which the incident occurred and further stated how the accused twisted their testicles and caused injuries thereto, and also how the accused took bite on their respective hands/palms and the said narration of the incident by the said witnesses is consistent and corroborative to the testimonies of each other. Moreover, the testimonies of complainant PW6 Sayed Khadir; PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and PW3 Bhagwan Aute corroborate with the medical certificates Exhs. 18, 20 and 21 respectively and although it is stated in the said certificates that the said injured persons sustained injuries of simple nature, as stated by the complainant PW6 Sayed Khadir that he was required to be admitted in the emergency ward as stated in certificate Exh. 18 and so is the position of PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar, who also was required to be admitted in emergency ward as stated in certificate Exh. 20. Moreover, the medical evidence adduced by PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaonkar also substantiated the aforesaid injury certificates, which were issued by him and he has categorically stated that traumatic orchitis contusions found in the testicles of PW6 Sayed Khadir and PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar as mentioned in injury certificates Exhs. 18 and 20 respectively were possible by twisting the testicles and he further stated that if the testicles are twisted forcefully, it may cause shock to the patient and it would be dangerous to his life. Accordingly, the ocular evidence of PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and PW3 Bhagwan Aute and the medical evidence of their injury certificates Exhs. 18 and 20 respectively were possible by twisting the testicles and he further stated that if the testicles are twisted forcefully, it may cause shock to the patient and it would be dangerous to his life. Accordingly, the ocular evidence of PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and PW3 Bhagwan Aute and the medical evidence of their injury certificates Exhs. 18, 19 and 20 respectively, as well as the testimony of PW5 Dr. Kishor Pedgaonkar corroborate with each other and those are in consonance with each other in respect of injuries sustained by the said injured persons and cause thereof, and since PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and PW3 Bhagwan Aute have categorically deposed in their depositions that the accused is the author and perpetrator of the said injuries, clear nexus is established between the accused and the alleged crime. 30. As regards the grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and no independent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, it is canvassed that curfew was imposed in the concerned area at the relevant time, as well as it has come in the evidence that there was secret information regarding the presence of the accused in his house, who was absconding under C.R. No.15 of 1993, and therefore, secret raid was effected at about 2.00 a.m. during the intervening night of 12-1-1993 and 13-1-1993 and at the time of said raid, the accused perceived the presence of police personnel near his house, and hence, the accused jumped from the wall of the house and tried to run away, and at that time the police witnesses i.e. PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and PW3 Bhagwan Aute chased after him and apprehended him, and at that time accused caused injuries to them, and therefore, under this scenario, and at this wee hours, there was no possibility of having any independent witness to the occurrence of the incident, and hence, the prosecution cannot be blamed for not adducing any independent evidence in respect of the occurrence of the incident. 31. 31. Besides, considering the testimonies of aforesaid police witnesses i.e. PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar and PW3 Bhagwan Aute, it is amply clear that the omissions elicited in their testimonies are of minor nature and do not go to the root of the matter and there are no vital contradictions in their testimonies and their testimonies are consistent with each other in respect of occurrence of the incident and their testimonies cumulatively involve the accused in the crime, and therefore, their testimonies are required to be construed as truthful, reliable and trustworthy and relying upon the said testimonies, the conviction can be safely based against the accused, as rightly done by the learned trial Court. 32. Moreover, it has implicitly come in the evidence that PW7 PSI Sangram Sangle, PW6 Sayed Khadir, PW2 Pandurang Nalegaonkar S.R.P. police constable and PW3 Bhagwan Aute S.R.P. Head Constable, who are the public servants, and who were discharging their respective duties, were prevented by the accused by his act from discharging their duties as public servants by causing hurt to them, as discussed herein above, and hence, the present case clearly comes under the ambit of the provisions of Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. 33. In the circumstances, the present appeal bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be dismissed. 34. In the result, present appeal being sans merit stands dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant/accused by the judgment and order rendered by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, on 18-5-1998 in Sessions Case No.144 of 1996 under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused is on bail and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court within the period of one week, failing which the Trial Court to take proper and suitable action to take the appellant/accused into custody and send him to the jail to undergo the sentence awarded by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18-5-1998.