Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 977 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Kisan Vital Bhusar

2017-05-22

A.S.CHANDURKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, takes exception to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Second Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1998. In the said trial, the respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the complainant are step-brothers. On 30th June, 1998, the complainant had gone to the shop of Deorao [PW 2] for chewing Pan. The Accused No.1 had come there and had assaulted him with a sickle on his head. The Accused No.2 had in the process caught hold of the complainant. The complainant sustained injuries, on the basis of which he filed a report. The crime was registered and investigated and on its completion, charge was framed against the accused. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge held that the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, acquitted them. 3. Shri Bissa, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submitted that the evidence of the complainant – PW 1 who was also an injured witness ought to have been relied upon. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in disbelieving the complainant merely on the ground that there was some previous enmity between the complainant and the accused. He submitted that on consideration of the entire evidence on record, it was clear that it was the accused nos. 1 and 2 who had assaulted the complainant and, hence, had committed offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. 4. Shri Dharaskar, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the judgment of acquittal. He submitted that except the complainant, there was no other eye-witness. PW 2, who was the Pan shop owner, had turned hostile and the trial Court, therefore, was justified in disbelieving the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the seizure of the incriminating weapon and the manner in which it was sent for chemical analysis was also doubtful. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of the case. He further submitted that the seizure of the incriminating weapon and the manner in which it was sent for chemical analysis was also doubtful. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of the case. After giving due consideration to the respective submissions, I find that the trial Court was justified in disbelieving the case of the prosecution. 6. According to the complainant, he had been to the Pan shop of PW 2, at which point of time, he was assaulted from the back by accused no.1. PW 2, though examined, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Other witnesses examined have also turned hostile. The complainant is related to the accused – they being the stepbrothers. There are civil proceedings pending between the parties with regard to partition of family property. Similarly, a criminal case is also pending between the parties. Strained relations between them have been brought on record. In such situation, it is necessary to examine whether there is other corroborative evidence to support the case of the prosecution. 7. The seizure of the weapon is dated 30th June, 1998 and seizure of the clothes of accused no.1 is on 1st July, 1998. These articles were, however, sent for chemical analysis only on 17th September, 1998. The prosecution has not brought on record the aspect with regard to placement of these articles during said period of more than two months. 8. In the light of aforesaid material on record, I find that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in granting benefit of doubt to the accused. It is well settled that in absence of any perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, interference with an order of acquittal should not be easily made. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.